The Mac, Merely a Safe Windows System?
There are a lot of very good reasons to buy a Mac, deft styling, ease of use, powerful Unix operating system, iLife, build quality… The list could continue but it is sufficient to note that there are as many of reasons to a Mac as there are to buy a PC. However, when trying to convert Windows folks over to the Mac most of those reasons go out the, umm, window. The argument most people employ when trying to make a fence sitter tip into Mac country is not a point in favor of the Mac but rather a point against Windows and that pitch nearly always involves viruses, spyware and assorted malware.
On one level the argument is disheartening, it would be much better if people proselytized for the Mac on the computers virtues rather a competing platforms deficiencies. Still the concerns are real, we are all familiar with the stories about Windows PCs becoming infected within minutes. Which, I will grant, is disturbing but the discerning Windows user can remain relatively safe by being proactive. Being “proactive” usually includes installing a firewall, changing your browser, avoiding questionable sites and running several programs such as Ad-Aware and Norton AntiVirus. Honestly, the current state of affairs is laughable. You wouldn’t buy a chain saw if it meant you had to buy a new blade and you could only cut trees in one weed free part of your property. In short, expectations are not set too high when a consumer expects the machine to work safely with default applications out of the box.
Realizing that the argument is valid and understanding that, once invoked, you’re not really extolling Mac virtue you have to wonder what Peter Oppenheimer was thinking when he publicly opined:
Sure that wouldn’t mean much if it was a New York Times Writer editorializing but it wasn’t. Peter Oppenheimer happens to be the CFO of Apple Computer. Mr. Oppenheimer’s comments are tantamount to saying: Hey, the Mac doesn’t suck as bad as Windows. Implicit in statements of this sort is the notion that if Windows PCs could only get the security thing down they would be as good as any Mac. Coming from an officer of Apple computer that is a statement that should sadden any Mac enthusiasts out there.
If Apple starts to base the appeal of its products on the problems found in other systems it just becomes a game of we don’t suck so much. This kind of thought is problematic, people want to buy things that are great, not things that are merely acceptable. It is much like replacing a really bad car with a slightly better vehicle. You’ll tell people why you got rid of the troubled Pontiac, maybe it was the transmission, but you don’t say why you actually chose the new car. Folks don’t leave the conversation pining for a car like the one you just purchased, they leave remembering only to avoid the model you jettisoned.
If Apple is really interested in differentiating themselves perhaps their executives shouldn’t be pointing to the flaws of Windows rather they should be touting the advantages of the Mac platform. The press and individual users will moan loudly enough about the problems inherent in Windows and the message will be received with less incredulity. It is possible that Mr. Oppenheimer sees security as the only thing separating the Mac from the Windows platform and, if that is the case, I suggest that he use his influence to make the Mac truly great and not just less flawed.
Note: Personally I find the Mac to be truly great. I find Windows XP to be fairly good and very usable. Of course I don’t worry about security, the only time I use Windows is when I’m using someone else’s computer.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Chris, in three weeks time, we will have Tiger, and all the positive reasons why Macs are better that you could hope for. My faves are Spotlight; Core Image and Parental Control.
But that said, I’ve convinced my brother to switch by simply saying “If you want security (from malware) and low maintenance, buy a Mac” or “If there’s software you have to use that only runs on the *latest* Windows PC, buy a PC”
He’s buying a Mac (probably a mini), coz his apps that need Windows, already run fine on his old PC and he’s sick and tired of the pain malware is causing him.
Sadly, currently, the negatives of PCs are still our best hook. And I think that is because (as I a switcher of 18mths ago but wannabe for 20 years, found) you’ve really got to experience a Mac for a while to truly appreciate the advantages that you keep hearing.
But as I say - I think with Tiger, a few of those positives will be easily demonstrable.
The point, it seems to me, is not whether “Mac OS sucks less than Windows”, or “Mac OS is better than Windows”.
The point is Apple has to *say* that “Mac OS sucks less than Windows”, or “Mac OS is better than Windows”.
You know. Advertising. There are many otherwise intelligent, thoughtful folks out there who don’t know that Apple still makes computers, and are sure that you can not send emails with them (or run Office). They believe they are only good for graphics, or are the same today as they were in the Apple ][ lab at their old school.
The cure? Tell someone. Count how many Dell, IBM and Intel commercials you see in a day. Compare and contrast with Apple (iPod spots don’t count. There is no Halo Effect. Show me the data.).
If you do see one, it is some sort of feel-good schmaltz. Blech!
Instead, show it off. Make commercials which use Office to build a spreadsheet, make a chart, and put it in a doc. Connect to iTMS and buy a song (two birds with one stone). Expos� a little. For that matter, show off making an “�” (I’ve never managed to do that on a Windows system, not for lack of trying, or asking folks who should know such as Qu�becois).
Summary: Get the word out, whatever it is.
Two points: I wonder if your quote of Oppenheimer’s is taken from a context within which he made other pro-Mac statements? Secondly, consider IQ. 49% are above 100, 51% below (yeah, should be 50/50 all things being equal, but biologically it’s 49/51 or so). So 49% of the pop. has an IQ higher than the other 51%. Mac desktop share? Maybe 15% tops. You need more than raw smarts to consider the Mac. You need to experience the difference. Meaning - exposure to it. If it means exposure via escape from malware, so be it. And as a Mac user, I’m happy to shout that to the rooftops.
There are multiple things wrong with that last comment. First of all, the *definition* of IQ 100 is that it is the average for the population in any given age group, so there can be no ‘biological’ drift from it in the population: it is defined according to the population. The 49/51 is probably attributable to the difference between an average and a mean, not biology that’s impossible). Secondly, you don’t even need any data to conclude that 49% of people are more important than the other 51%. That’s a tautological truth given variation in a sample. Just like 70% of people are smarter than the other 30%, and 99% of them are smarter than the other 1%. In fact, with absolutely no data or study to back me up, pick any number X from 1 to 100, and I can guarantee you that X % of the population is smarter/taller/smellier/more ignorant about statistics/what-have-you than the other 100-X %. Duh.
What does it all add up to? The worst arguments for the Mac are neither positive nor negative approaches, but rather clueless arguments like these that reek of smug elitism and arrogance on the part of someone who actually doesn’t have clue one what he’s talking about. Anytime a Mac user implies that Mac users have higher IQs, you can bet that they’re the sort of person who will prove themselves dead wrong in the next available breath.
P.S. I am a unbroken Mac user since the Mac Plus.
I meant to write ‘smarter’ not ‘more important’.
Talking about Windows� vulnerabilities is merely a ploy to take advantage of the current spate of bad news about malware on Windows PCs. As for other Mac advantages, Mac fans have always talked them up. MacAddict Magazine makes a fetish out of Windows bashing. None of that has made much difference in Apple�s market share over the years.
However, security is an issue everyone knows something about, even if they don�t know much. So playing up the issue is sure to strike a cord in the public consciousness - hence it makes good advertising. AOL has a cute ad campaign going hyping their own security improvements.
In my mind the only real question is, how long is it going to take for some ego-driven hacker to take Apple up on the challenge to create and distribute an OS X capable virus? I�m not talking about the theoretical vulnerabilities which Apple hastens to patch before they can be exploited. Though talking about how secure the Mac platform is may be useful in the short term, sooner or later someone is going to make something out of it that we won�t like.
Thus I hesitate to gloat or feel apprehensive when I do.
I use both Mac and Windows and will be purchasing my own G5 soon for editing. The reason I’m buying is not because of malware, stability, or style. I’m buying because of FCP. And that’s the real secret to getting to people to switch (or “add”).
People need some reason other than style, security, or stability, which are not much more than amorphous ad terms to most users (like claiming your soap is “zestier”). XP is about as stable as OSX and it’s stylish enough. Is it more vulernable to malware? Sure, because that’s what everyone uses. But does it immediately lock up from an explosion of adware and viruses as soon as you turn it on? No.
In fact, “security” IMO has become the defacto mantra when comparing PCs and Macs the way “stability” was the mantra five years ago. It’s just a point to have at the ready when someone asks why PC users should bother paying more money for a machine that essentially does the same thing as what they’re already using.
My dad, no computer tech by any stretch, has had zero viruses and one adware on his Gateway in a year and half (that he himself installed via an IE toolbar and simply couldn’t uninstall).
The bottom line for is that most apps for most users run on the PC. The PC is also cheaper. And if you’re like my dad, that means more than style. Security for him is not nearly the issue it’s made out to be either, so yammering on about malware that he’s supposed to be experiencing falls on deaf ears.
If he’s going to swtich (or “add”), it’s going to have to be because of some compelling reason, like a killer app. And I can’t think of anything that he would be interested in that fits the bill.
I myself use Macs but unfortunately i have to use windows. I dont really like PC’s in general, the XP operating system is truely pathetic. For ne1 who hasnt compared the XP system to the OS X system needs to go down to the Apple store closest 2 u. Heres something i always ask PC users: Name 1 major innovation that PC have made in the past five years and for every 1 u name ill name 5 for Mac.
I use both and there’s very little difference between the two in my day to day operation. They’re both stable and easy to use. The Mac runs some of the software I need to use. Windows runs others.
“Innovation” is another one of those Mac spin words, as if it really matters in the discussion. Did it matter that it took the Mac years longer than Windows to impliment protected memory and true pre-emptive multi-tasking? Or that Safari borrows almost every one of it’s browsing conventions from other browsers? In fact, Final Cut Pro, the reason I use the Mac, is borrowed heavily from Avid’s line of editing products.
What matters to me is what works for the right price. Does it matter to me that Avid is the real innovator in digital editing? Or is it more important that FCP works and works for a lot less money?
Chris, I hate to tell you, but if it were really true that “people want to buy things that are great, not things that are merely acceptable,” then Windows wouldn’t have a 95% marketshare when Macs are supposed to be the better option.
For most people, good enough is good enough. And right now, growing numbers of users are finding that Windows is no longer good enough. If that’s the opportunity presented and the only meaningful comparison that will make Windows users consider a Mac, then that’s the reality of the situation.
I have just about convinced my Dad—a command-line old-school DOS man—to get a Mac mini. Why? Because it won’t annoy him as much as his Windows computer has, and because it won’t require the support that a new Windows box would. Because I can’t be spending every weekend at my parent’s house troubleshooting his computer. It’s as valid a reason as anything else.
And consider what happens if these people who buy Macs because “it sucks less” discover that they DO think it’s better, and tell all their friends—just like everyone told their friends about their iPods? I don’t think Apple’s dissing the Mac, here; I think they’re taking a long-term view.
if it were really true that “people want to buy things that are great, not things that are merely acceptable,” then Windows wouldn’t have a 95% marketshare when Macs are supposed to be the better option.
It really depends on what you mean by “better.” The presumption that Mac is automatically better in every way is, of course, absurd. Otherwise, the Mac would have a much larger share of the OS market the way they do with the Ipod.
So why would Windows users pick Windows over the Mac? According to Mac users, because they’re either stupid or ignorant. Not exactly the way to win over hearts and minds.
All things being equal, the Mac is nicer to look at and integrated better with the hardware. But all things are not equal. Windows has two distinct advantages that the Mac is a long way from rivaling. Thousands more applications and a bohemeth of a user base. The Mac’s advantages while nice (security, design) just aren’t enough incentive for most people to abandon software availability and ubiquity.
People are very scared of switching over to Mac these days. Most people know the XP system and would rather not bother learning a new foreign system. So unless one of their friends comes over and shows them how OS X works or if they take the initiave to learn bout OS X, then they will never switch. This fear of switching keeps a much larger percentage of people using XP. “So why should I use OS X when every1 is using XP”-Average User “Why bother?”
Its not that we think that we think XP user are retarded or ignorant, we no that they are afraid of reform. Happens all throughout history.
Its not that we think that we think XP user are retarded or ignorant, we no that they are afraid of reform. Happens all throughout history.
Fear? Are you serious? That’s even dumber than saying they’re stupid or ignorant.
Using my dad as an example, why would he switch? He’s aware of Macs and Linux, and no, he’s not afraid of change.
His PC does what he wants it to do. It costs less than a Mac. It’s stable. He already owns dozens of programs. So why should he change operating systems, computer hardware, and virtually all of his software for no substantive gain? Because it looks a nicer? You’re going to have to come up with some better reason for him to shell out hundreds of dollars for a new computer.