Does OS X Have Enough of the “Good Stuff” to Sway Basic Users?
There are a million schemes for increasing adoption of OS X. Everything from bundling a demo of the operating system on any iPod large enough to hold the data to an AOL style give away of demo copies on CD-ROM. Call it fallout from the Intel switch but since last June’s developer conference Apple fans (including me) have been falling all over themselves trying to come up with ways for OS X to rapidly expand the user base. Yet all the tactics rely on a key assumption: that people will, given a equal choice, choose OS X over Windows in a significant number of cases. Perhaps the underlying assumption is a little too hopeful.
The theory generally proceeds as follows: Not many people have truly been exposed to Mac OS X in a meaningful way. Those that have often love the operating system and vow a return to the world of Windows will come only at gunpoint. If a vast number of people could use both Windows and OS X for a time they would use Windows less and less until they compute solely with OS X in some sort of digital nirvana. Which is a nice thought but not the way things usually happen. A few months after the expressed rapture the cold reality sets in that OS X may be great but it certainly isn’t perfect. Complaints start popping up about the finder or GUI consistency. The users certainly aren’t contemplating a switch back to Windows but they’ve become less enamored with OS X. This is the moment that a switcher becomes a solid Mac user, they’ve become so used to OS X they no longer marvel at round rects or are consistently amazed that they don’t have to run a virus program constantly. The behavior is also a nice example of Hedonic adaptation.
Hedonic adaptation can also be described as becoming accustomed to luxury. If you live in the north, say Boston, and you buy a car with heated leather seats (like Big Mac’s Bentley), you’re likely to be initially impressed with the comfort the seats provide on sub zero days. Eventually, however, the seats become a necessity. The next time you’re car shopping any model without heated leather seats will be instantly rejected. The fancy heating coils have gone from the zenith of luxury to the most pedestrian requirement. In that sense, Hedonic adaptation is a powerful motivator to keep people on OS X. The caveat is that people won’t adapt unless the added luxury is of use to them.
Cast your mind to a completely different scenario. Imagine for a moment the same car in South Florida. Heated seats in that part of the country are only going to be appreciated by chronically chilled octogenarians. The vast majority of automobile owners would find the notion of heated seats to be superfluous at best and wasteful in most cases. Hence, there is no reason to vet your next car purchase by looking at the inclusion of heated seats since that is an option, however nice, that was of zero utility to the driver. Put another way if the improvements aren’t something accessible the consumer the consumer never becomes dependent on them.
With the less subtle aspects of Hedonic adaptation firmly in mind we can turn out attention to the most compelling question: If the masses were exposed to OS X would the experience be persuasive enough for them to switch permanently? First, consider the mountains of anecdotal evidence provided by actual switchers who constantly gush that they wish that they had made the change sooner. Add to the happy personal experiences the media coverage where seemingly every columnist is giving OS X rave reviews while decrying the security woes of XP. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to reach at this point is that if the masses were exposed to OS X they would surely make the switch.
The conclusion, as presented, is logical but perhaps shallow. Those who have already switched are obviously interested in computing. Columnists (myself exempted) are generally keenly aware of technological trends and very well informed about the positives and negatives surrounding both platforms. In both cases the subjects are people who actually enjoy technology. The wider world is not primarily made of this demographic. The vast majority of people don’t care about their computer. For these users the computer is just something that rips music, surfs the web and prints out really bad homemade holiday greeting cards. For these people access to the world’s greatest program iMovie (written by world’s greatest programmer Glen Reid) is going to be akin to heated seats in Miami mentioned earlier. The rest of iLife and other OS X advantages share the same fate. When the things you use a computer for are limited, the advantages of any particular platform are limited as well.
Which leaves us pondering the most basic of questions: Is the most basic experience using OS X powerful enough for the general populace to make the switch given enough exposure? The big thing most will cite here is security but people seem to muddle by and, in fact, have largely become accustomed to securing their computer to their satisfaction. Put another way, as a Mac user, the steps Windows folks go through to secure the computer would have driven me to any other platform long ago. Obviously, the experience is not as bad as I envision it. Which leaves us wondering… Is the OS X experience that much better for basic users than the Windows experience? I have no answer but if Apple truly makes a mass market push, we’ll know.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Are you saying that there are no switchers? None at all? Not even one?
I mean that there aren’t a significant number of switchers. And I measure that by the fact that Apple’s market share has increased only marginally in the past year or so.
I don’t want Apple to get anywhere even close to 10% of the market share, because I fear what that “power” might do to them. After all, power corrupts…
Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t need marketshare in order to pull some rather dubious tricks on consumers. See my thread in the forums about their AV cable for the iPod. You can also look at how they’ve locked out competitors from the iTMS/iPod paradigm and imagine what they’d do if they controlled EVERY computer, both the OS and hardware, in the world.
Although my point’s already been defended above, I really meant they would switch given a simple choice.
Most consumers go into computer stores knowing they want a Windows PC. And those unaware of the Mac, if they are offered that option, ask if it works with their existing software or if it plays the latest games, and the answer, of course, is “no.”
Well what would you do if buying a different system meant that none of your existing software would work, your kids couldn’t play the latest games, plus the machine itself is more expensive?
That multi-OS related patent means nothing until we see them unveil a product utilizing that technology. In fact, it means more of nothing when paying attention to how often companies now patent things they’re not even using. Shouldn’t that not be allowed?
In fact, companies will often patent a device simply because they don’t want others to use it. So the multi-OS patent could be because they want to run VM on Mac hardware, OR just as likely it could be that they have no intention of doing so and don’t want ANYONE else to do it without facing patent-infringement lawsuits.
Most consumers go into computer stores knowing they want a Windows PC. And those unaware of the Mac, if they are offered that option, ask if it works with their existing software or if it plays the latest games, and the answer, of course, is “no.”
Well what would you do if buying a different system meant that none of your existing software would work, your kids couldn’t play the latest games, plus the machine itself is more expensive?
It’s stupid to think that everybody who goes to buy a new computer already has one. And all those people going to buy a brand new computer are never made aware of Macs, which is the point being made here.
The percentage of people going into a computer store getting a new computer being mostly interested in backward compatibility is extremely low. Most people are either a new computer buyer, upgrades their computer a piece at a time and doesn’t buy brand new ones, or has had their current computer for such a long time that backward compatibility won’t even be of interest to them because the software itself is old too.
I must say, you’re seeing this extremely one-sidedly Beeblebrox. I’ve found most of your comments to be quite intelligent, but you can’t be stubborn about everything you say.
Most people are either a new computer buyer, upgrades their computer a piece at a time and doesn’t buy brand new ones, or has had their current computer for such a long time that backward compatibility won’t even be of interest to them because the software itself is old too.
Out of all those you mention, the only ones who wouldn’t be interested in backwards compatibility are “new” computer buyers. But even a good many of those have to deal with compatibility issues with their computers at work.
So out of all those computer users, a small percentage can purchase a fresh new computer unencumbered by platform considerations. One would hope that those buyers would take it upon themselves to shop carefully for both Macs and PCs, but they’re going to notice some things when they do:
1) Mac displays are smaller and have less hardware selection. This is not anti-choice or anti-Mac. It reflects proportionate demand and market share. The Mac is a niche product. At my local Fry’s, Macs have a whole row dedicated to them compared to about five for PCs, which favors Apple.
2) Less software and accessories available over all. While the quality may be considerably higher on average for Mac software, consumers still like choice, even if they will never take advantage of it.
3) Macs are more expensive. I know this because even I as a Mac owner gravitate toward the Mac aisle and lament the considerably higher prices compared to equivalent PCs. A naive computer shopper will only be more repulsed by Apple’s premium pricing.
But to put this in perspective that Apple-fanatics can understand, imagine a retailer had to set up a store for mp3 players and had the iPod as well as a few competitors to display. Would you expect the retailer to devote as much space to the other players or would he be justified in giving the lion’s share to the iPod? Would a salesperson be justified in focusing mostly on the iPod? And would a consumer shopping in the store be more or less swayed by the greater availability of accessories available for the iPod?
I must say, you’re seeing this extremely one-sidedly Beeblebrox.
I hope you understand that this reproach from an Apple fanatic is totally meaningless. Not only is it insanely hypocritical, it’s not true. All I’m telling you is that consumers have a choice and that they pick PCs over Macs. Those are the facts. But Mac fanatics are so convinced that consumers would otherwise pick a Mac over a PC that they have to concoct all this fantasy about consumers being basically forced by anti-Mac salespeople to buy a PC. I’m guessing at gun point or something.
But reality does not seem to bear out this scenario. Salespeople are right in assuming that a customer needs a PC for all the reasons mentioned previously, but they will certainly answer questions about Macs and sell you one if you want one. I’ve NEVER had a saleperson talk me out of buying a Mac when I asked about them.
It’s stupid to think that everybody who goes to buy a new computer already has one. And all those people going to buy a brand new computer are never made aware of Macs, which is the point being made here.
Why so? OK, not everybody who is buying a computer today has owned on before, but what percentage out there would you think has never owned a computer before? I just found a piece online stating that the US Census found that 61% of households own at least one computer. That’s a very high percentage right there.
OK, I know what you’re saying—there’s almost 40% of households that are computerless. However, that’s probably the group that will be least likely to get a Mac because it is more expensive. The rate of computer ownership increases as income increases. 95% of households making at least $100,000 own a computer, whereas only 41% of households making $25,000 or less owns a computer. (Though that is higer than I would have expected.) Now, if you’re making $25,000 it will not be easy to shell out the $1,300 for an iMac, $1,000 for an iBook. Heck, if you had to choose between the Mini at $500 (without screen, or keyboard or mouse) or roughly the same amout for an eMachine with all of that, then I think the choice has already been made.
Beeblebrox: But reality does not seem to bear out this scenario.
You wanna know where the reality comes from? First time I bought a computer - 1998 - I walked into the store and was told specifically not to buy a Mac. I then got locked into PCs for the next 7 years as I slowly begun my progression to Macs (and only finally got one 14 months ago.) And I know for a fact I’m not the only one as my friends and family will attest. THAT’S the reality, Beeblebrox.
The fact is people aren’t really being given the choice of a Mac. No it’s not at gunpoint, but you don’t need a gun when a simple bad comment to a new user will do. It’s not just about proportionate store layout, it’s all the frickking propaganda too. I’ve only been on a Mac extremely recently so I think my experience of what really happens in the PC world could only be more true if I was still in it.
And OH MY GOD is it not just stores. When was the last time you read a PC magazine and what they say about Macs? And the fact is, when you are going to buy a new computer you pick up a PC magazine because, well all computers are Personal Computers, right? Well no, but that’s what I thought at one point, and what most think when buying a new computer, too.
Yes Macs are put in the corner of the computer store; Yes people want backward compatibility and gaming PCs; But the fact is that Macs are given a bad name in the MS PC world, which is where everybody puts their feet first.
Yes you could say exactly the same about iPods in relation to other mp3 players. Now while I will agree with iPods getting more attention, the fact is that it’s a better product (according to every review I’ve ever read) but this is the same with Macs being superior too (according to almost every review I’ve ever read) and yet it doesn’t seem to get more attention. Add it up.
Ster: Why so? OK, not everybody who is buying a computer today has owned on before, but what percentage out there would you think has never owned a computer before? I just found a piece online stating that the US Census found that 61% of households own at least one computer. That’s a very high percentage right there.
Oh thank you for putting some statistics into this! (I would’ve looked myself if I knew where to find them.)
So if you look at that - 60% households have a computer. Now let’s say there’s an average of 3 people per household, but let’s reduce that to just 2 allowing the fact that some households may have more computers) - so that means that 30% of people have a computer. That means 70% don’t own their own computer!
Now this is all just estimations, but whichever way you stretch those statistics you will see that there are many, MANY people who are walking into stores each day looking for their first computer. And I know this because I pretty much see someone asking for help on a new computer every time I walk into a computer superstore.
Those statistics came from a recently released report from the US Census bureau (I think if you look up “census computer ownership” in google news, you can find a number of articles from mid november with the numbers.) After I posted this, I did immediately think of one group of people who’d be sorta on their first computer—recent college and high school graduates. These people, while likely having used computers already at home, are more unencumbered in legacy needs than anyone whose out in the workforce already. They’re starting their own households, and while they probably at the under $50,000 income strata, more of that is disposable, than say it would be for the working poor. I don’t think it is a reasonable thing right now to expect everyone to have their own personal computer (that said, I think a lot of households already have at least 2. I don’t have statistics like this on that, but from an eyeball guesstimate, I think most families at about $50,000 has more than one PC), but I think there is growth as kids grow up and move out of home.