UrbanBard's Profile

Perceptions are funny, Sean M; it usually requires a crisis event to change the kind of entrenched bigotry which favors Microsoft. Those crisis' are coming, but it is unclear how they will play out. This will take the next five to ten years. Ten years ago, Apple was beleaguered. Ten years from now, Microsoft may be. The odds are against Microsoft curing Window's problems with its foundations . That would require that MS go through the development hell that Apple went through for seven years with Mac OSX. MS Windows would lose most of its applications, so I doubt that MS would do that. But, If it doesn't do it, MS consigns itself to obsolescence. One thing that might help Windows is a hypervisor such as Intel has been working on (vPro.) In vPro, Windows would be confined in a hardware sandbox. A hypervisor in its own partition, and unconnected to the outside world, would constantly check to see if Windows has been corrupted and fix it. It would control Windows ability to do anything with ports, disks and memory. But, that imposes a hardware and physical cost which may not pay for itself. Protecting Windows from its vulnerabilities will jack up Wintel's cost in comparison with Apple. And it might be slow, slow, slow. If the IT departments aren't willing to pay more for this technology then the old game continues. If a technical improvement doesn't intervene, then Windows malware and virus problems will increase as ever stronger competition tries to bring Windows down. The original Apple antivirus advertisement, several years ago, said that there were 114, 000 Windows virus in the wild. Now, that number is over 200, 000. Where does it end? This problem is occurring when hardware prices are declining sufficiently that MS Windows is becoming an ever higher percentage of a new computer. If MS wants to be on a $100 OLPC computer and Windows basic costs $50, then MS's options are severely limited. If MS lowers its price for its basic OS, then it loses revenue. If it doesn't lower its price, then Linux replaces it. I expect that technical improvements will undercut Microsoft. If computers explode the way I think it will by having all its peripherals become separate computers, then this favors Apple and Linux. It will be rather nice to have all your wireless peripherals instantly recognize each other, integrate flawlessly and transparently work together. Much has to be worked out and I do not, yet, see how the parts will interoperate. The low price of the parts will push this. It would be convenient to take your keyboard from room to room and have the nearest monitor, which had been looking like a picture, start responding to your input. The wireless monitors will get so cheap that you might have four to six in your home. Many household conveniences will become easy and cheap to control. You plug them in and they just work. Your lights should turn on when you walk into a room. Your computer should take inputs from your oven on when to turn over the roast. It should inform you through your iPhone even if you are on your way to the corner store. Your refrigerator should tell you when you have run out of milk or inform you on which items are so old that you should throw them out. You should be able to check on how much time is necessary before your wash cycle ends. The half dozen security cameras you have situated around the house need a place to store its data, so you would need a mass storage devise. Your home server would download your programs for you automatically. All this should be at the same price that you pay for a computer now. Your Operating System would have to control all that and more. The OS is not going away, but it should remain in the background and let you do your work. Will MS be ready to do all that? I don't think so. MS is still stuck on the desktop where it was ten years ago. It hasn't put its money into future developments while it has been defending its niches. What Apple and Linux will be doing is expanding the computer marketplace, so poor Microsoft will be left behind. There is little reason for Apple to attack Microsoft directly. Let Microsoft keep its niches while Apple and Linux concentrates on the future. Apple and Linux will serve different needs, and support each other, so they don't have to be at odds. Apple should be the interface to the user while Linux is in the lower level devises. But, there should be constant movement around the periphery of each Operating System. Every gain by Apple and Linux will seem like it is out of Microsoft's hide. It is the perception of Microsoft's monopoly which gives it power. But its marketshare will decline. Sometime in the future, people will wake up. Most of this marketshare change will be from embedded Linux devises which act as cash registers, displays and front end for mainframes. After the perceptions change, more people will be willing to give Apple a chance.

Idon't know, Greg Alexander, if Apple will lower its standard price. It depends on how quickly Apple wants Snow Leopard to be adopted. I don't expect ithat to happen, though. What I'd like to see is a bundle such as they had for iLife and iWorks with Leopard 10.5. If that was for a couple hundred dollars including Snow Leopard, I'd bite.

Chris Howard said: "It seems to me, that many Macheads are of the opinion that if a computer is cheaper than a Mac, it is crap." That wasn't my argument. My argument was that there is a wider variation in quality on the PC side. If you looking for a cheap computer, how do you avoid getting stuck with junk? A checklist won't tell you that. Who can you trust to tell you, either? The other part is that to avoid being stung by poor quality, a PC buyer needs to make themselves an expert to weed out the junk. Or they can buy a higher quality brand name computer, like a HP or Dell, and wind up costing about the same as a Mac. But, does the time necessary to become an expert on PC hardware get folded into the cost of the cheap PC? No. But, it should, because we Macintosh owners time is worth money. Why shouldn't your time be worth something, too? "Is this true? Is any computer cheaper than a Mac crap?" What Mac crap are we talking about, here? "Hadley presented a comparison with similar basic specs. Folks have had fun pointing out that on other specs the MacBook is superior and ultimately worth the extra $400." Spec's don't tell all the story. I wouldn't use Windows Vista even if you gave me $400. But that is a personal preference. "But that doesn’t make the Dell crap. Inferior yes, crap, no. And this seems to get lost on Mac fans. They seem to have lost touch with reality, believing only Mac specs constitute worthy computers." We Mac fans have a right to our opinions, since we are paying for them. Might it be that there is something which makes the Mac's worth more to an Apple customer? Especially since, most of us were once PC buyers who converted? Price isn't everything, Chris. You may not agree with our opinions, because they do not apply to you, but can't you recognized that there is something that makes us value Apple? It isn't bigotry, because we used to own PC's. "Let’s look at true reality. It’s not about the hardware. It’s not the hardware that makes Macs great. A Mac mini is not crap because it doesn’t have the specs of a Mac Pro." It's not the spec's, Chris. You buy a computer to fit your needs. It either works for you or it doesn't. There are many intangibles in a computer which the spec's cannot cover. Should we ignore them? "(True you can actually get crap PC hardware. Hey, but until the recent Mac mini upgrade, you could get crap Macs too.)" Funny about that. When the Mac Mini was introduced, AOpen computers produced a PC in the same form factor which had a slower processor and cost $100 more. The Mini costs more because it uses expensive laptop components to get a tiny size. The old Mini is very popular in server banks. It took so long for the Mini to be upgraded, because hardware prices had to come down to where Apple could start making its usual profit margin. Besides, what was the purpose of the Mac Mini? It was to entice cheap PC owners to buy Apple. If all you want to run is just the Internet and Apple's iLife programs, then the Mac Mini works fine. There are plenty of people who have few computing needs and are pressed for space. Of course, the Technocrats among us might consider the Mac Mini crap, but it was never designed for them. "And that’s why Lauren, Giampaolo and the kid can get a good computer cheaper than a Mac. " As I said, Apple chooses to not engage in the low end market. Those buyers could get cheaper, certainly. But, were those computers GOOD? I don't think so. Why? Because the computers they chose wouldn't perform the functions which the buyers initially said they wanted. Worse, they were stuck with the cheaper levels of Vista which wouldn't give them an equal experience to the Mac. They wouldn't have Vista Areo on them, except for the $1500 comparison. "But MS is just comparing hardware. You can get good computers cheaper than Macs, although inferior spec wise. It’s about the OS. " Right. But, the NVedia 9400 GPU's are hot on the new Macs. Apple will be doing a great deal with them, besides games. "You hear it over and over and over again from switchers. Lines like “It just works”, “I get more done”, “I don’t spend my weekends troubleshooting”. That’s not everyone’s experience, but I think it’s a safe generalization." Yes, this is a quality difference which gets passed over by the ads. There is also an "unlearning curve" which goes on here. It takes several months of use for a convert to "get the Mac experience." The Mac OS suddenly feels better and more predictable on an unconscious level. The old Windows fear of trying something new, just for fun, vanishes, because you trust that the Mac won't let you destroy your computer. Some people never get the Mac Experience or give it the necessary time, so they switch back. So be it. Use what works for you. One size doesn't fit all. "I was talking to a friend recently who uses Windows at both home and work (and who says he wants to get a Mac at home), and I said I’d had so little Windows experience in the last few years since switching I’d forgotten how bad Windows is." That's the point; we tend to forget unpleasant experiences. When I help a PC owner fix their problems, I have to fumble around at it. Nothing feels comfortable or safe on Windows. I have to cudgel my brain and ask, "How NOT to do it." I succeed at fixing PC's problem by intentionally choosing the wrong way -- the uncomfortable way--the un-Macintosh way. "And I asked if Windows is as bad as people say. His response was “Yes, yes, yes, yes.. Yes!" The problem is, Chris, is that your friend may be ignorant of the real differences between the Mac and PC's. Or they may be deluded by old arguments which don't apply any more, or they may be confused that the hardware is cheaper on the PC side. It takes a real leap of faith to overcome the conditioning which has kept them on the PC side. Then, who likes starting over by unlearning MS Windows backward way of doing things? Many people are trying the Mac, now, because they have a safety net in that you can always run Windows OS on a Mac. The funny thing is that the people who plan on doing this rapidly give up Windows unless they have a requirement at work. Then, they moan and groan to me how awful and backwards Windows is.

Chris Howard said: "It was just that in MS’s sample-set, so far, 100% of buyers would have seriously considered a Mac if it was in their budget (in reality it’s probably 3 in 10 at best). And every ad is going to show that 100%." That's how you rig an argument. You prescreen to create a foregone conclusion. You intentionally pick out ignorant people. It's rather pathetic of Microsoft to do this, right? That's because MS can't compete on anything but price and ignorance. I don't really care if 7 out of 10 buyers would never considered a Mac. Not long ago, that figure would have been 9 out of 10. Nor do I think that Apple cares, since it only markets to the upper end of the Consumer, Creative and Small to Medium sized business Markets. Apple is coming from a very low market share and is growing at a compounded rate of over 30% a year. It only takes another six years at the same rate to be at over 50% of the market. Do I expect that? No, because trends never extend forever and the computer market place is going to change soon. Apple is doing quite well. It has no need to change its marketing plan. It would be best to laugh at these ads, because they don't target potential Apple customers. "Which sends out a msg to *all* PC buyers that they should consider a Mac. Interesting. And risky." Yes. It does create a mystery of why so many people are buying Macs, despite the ads. The last thing that MS should want is for a PC user to ask Mac owner why. Most Mac owners can give reasons why the Mac is different and better. It seems suicidal for MS to be calling attention to Apple.

Chris Howard said: "But on the other hand, clones mean greater market share for OS X, including better access to enterprise." What make you think that Steve Jobs wants either of those things? I get the feeling that Jobs pursues a dream of excellence--of craftsmanship, so he has turned his back on pursing market share directly. And the Enterprise market is too rigidly bureaucratic to appeal to Jobs egalitarian soul. Jobs has said that Microsoft creates third rate products and services. Jobs, in trying to turn out what he thinks is the best, has increased Apple's market share. He has also made incredible amounts of money. But, those increases are a result of Steve Jobs relentlessly pursuing his good taste. Thankfully, many people like Steve jobs definition of good taste. That is why Apple's sales have been growing at over 30% a year. Apple doen't need to grow any faster; there are problems when companies grow too rapidly. They lose sight of what makes them a success. "Which is better for Apple? It’s hard to know for sure. " Apple seems to be doing well by charting an independent course while ignoring the pundit's demands for them to be like Microsoft. Microsoft's market share seems all downhill from here. Microsoft was always a marketing company, not a technology company, not a consumer company. "We can’t look at the previous experience of clones, because they were launched from a position of desperation. " The Clone era was playing into Microsoft's strengths and on Microsoft's battle ground. It was quite foolish. Apple, because it had to develop the Mac OS, had to demand a higher price for its hardware. The sales price for the Mac OS was never enough to make up for the loss of its hardware profits. Apple's clone partners eat Apple alive because they could compete on just the hardware level. "Clones now we be from a position of strength. Clones then were from many manufacturers. This time Apple would limit it to one or two. Imagine OS X on HPs, Sonys and Dells." I disagree. Apple's strength is in its pursuit of excellence and in over coming its vulnerabilities. Apple is on the best hardware platform, with Intel CPU and NVedia GPU's. Apple's upcoming OS, Snow Leopard, due out in two to five months, will rock. It will be two to three times faster on the same hardware. And the fastest and most trouble free implementation of Windows Vista in the world is on Mac hardware. Wintel is being left in the dust. To hell with cheap, the Mac will be FAST. The computer marketplace will soon be entering a sea change. The Netbooks are an implementation of tomorrow's technology in yesterday's laptop form; cloud computing will be just a facet of that change. The hardware, five years from now, will be unlike anything which has gone before. We have only a glimmer of what will come. The system which is the most flexible, interactive and complete will win out. The HP's, the Sony's and the Dell's may make components for that coming change or they could vanish from the scene. This sea change will be chaotic and Microsoft's monopoly will be imperiled by it. Linux could win out over Microsoft, of all things. Why? Because most computers in the world are not operated by users. They are cash registers, data key entry devises, etc which use old Wintel computers running Windows 2000 or XP. Microsoft expands that 90% market share figure by including set top boxes, PDA's and Phones running some labeled Windows software. All that is about to change. The economics are such that a third of Microsoft's computer market share could be replaced by cheap, single function devises run by Linux. Apple won't be hurt by this, because they never sold into that market. "What does it do to MS’s latest ads? Lauren, Giampaolo and the kid would then say, “Well, this is the hardware I want, and this is the price, but can I get OS X with that?”" What Microsoft is doing is pointing out that Apple does not market to the low end, razor thin profit margin, e-waste computers. MS is assuming that today's poor economy will force consumers to choose based on price. I think this is foolish on a number of levels. First, you never want advertise your competition, not even acknowledge their existence. People who never considered a Mac before might start to look at them. Second, Apple has very good word of mouth. Smart people will ask their friend's about the Macintosh. The reply could be, "Sure, Mac's cost a bit more, but they are cute, sexy and are easy to use. They do everything." How could MS fight that? I don't believe that Microsoft's ads are effecting Apple's upper half of the consumer market while they do acquaint the lower half of Apple's existence. Microsoft used to be much better at producing computer Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. All Microsoft can knock, now, is Price? Apple can counter argue with, "Yeah, but you get good value for your money." A discriminating shopper knows that buying quality leads to increased satisfaction for a longer time. Paying half again more makes products last twice as long. It's good economics to buy quality. "All three of MS’s heroes so far didn’t buy their PC because it had Windows on it. All of them were quite prepared to buy Macs." Those were fables, Chris, it was a forgone conclusion that a HP computer would be chosen. It was evident in the buyer's intent to purchase the biggest of everything, while ignoring everything else. It's the old checklist argument. The checklist has only things on it which bias the buyer toward a PC. Quality, durability and ease of use are never even considered. The Macintosh is sold on intangibles which will never be on that check list. The buyers had no experience on a Mac, so how could they know what was important? I have extensive experience on both, so I would never buy Wintel or cheap. It never pays to do so. "So MS are actually proving Windows is not part of the equation! How insane of them!" The ads make the assumption that every computer has Windows on it, so there is no difference, but price. That is bizarre, unrealistic and prejudicial, but it is not insane. Microsoft wants to keep its monopoly. One way of doing that is to pretend that it has no competition. The Ads were all about hardware, so Apple had to lose. "So MS’s ads demonstrate ppl not wanting to pay Apple’s price for hardware, but being open to OS X." It was pure ignorance. The buyers were gulls. They thought they were getting things which their choice never had. "Those ads are telling us that ppl would buy Macs if they could afford them. That’s Microsoft telling us that!" Microsoft was slurring the differences between its Windows OS and Mac OSX by ignoring the latter. It was all features and no sizzle. "That’s a big opportunity for Apple. If it doesn’t want to build cheaper Macs, it could license others to. OS X on HP, Sony and Dell could cut swathes thru Windows’ market share." I disagree. If Apple pursued market share directly, that way, it would be at the cost of profits. Again, Apple is doing rather well despite the economy, so there is no need for panic.

beeblebrox said" "But they don’t. Because the fact is that a feature-for-feature clone would be CHEAPER and everyone knows it. Maybe the case design wouldn’t be as slick, but let’s see just how many people are willing to pay for coolness when it comes down to it." Of course, it would be cheaper. But how is a cheaper Mac in Apple's interest when it would destroy Apple's business plan for selling hardware? Mac OSX operating system is an enticement to sell Apple hardware. The Clone era almost bankrupted Apple. How is it in your interest to bankrupt Apple? Where would the money come from to improve the Mac OS if Apple cannot sell its hardware, because of competition from illegal hackintoshes?

Paul Howard said: "UrbanBard said “ The studies are clear; many independent sources have verified this. You may simply have not counted up the costs. Small business owners say that Mac users are 20% more productive than PC’s users, because they don’t have to spend as much time maintaining their computers. Of course, there are condition when a person would never notice this fact. Mostly, it is where they don’t place high demands or long hours on a computer and trade it in very often. These are the equivalent of low millage car. Low milage cars tend to have fewer maintenance costs.’ The Microsoft campaign, and the majority of Apple computer sales, are not about small businesses. They’re for home users. " Well, Duh, Paul. These Advertisements are a direct attack on Apple's customer base. Apple markets to the upper end of the consumer, creative and Small to Medium sized business marketplace. Are you saying that home users don't care about quality, durability and life expectancy? I'd say that you are wrong. Mac owners keep their computers about twice as long as PC owners. Then, they sell them on Ebay, because old Macs have a residual value. PCs are junk after two year. You can hardly give them away. "For home users there is no difference in TCO. " Of course there is, because we Mac users tend to keep our computers longer. Every year longer, we keep them, lowers its cost of ownership. I kept my last computer, a 800 MHz goosenecked flat screen iMac, for over six years. It still worked fine and never gave me any trouble, but was getting a little slow. I couldn't install Mac OSX 10.5 on it, so I got a 24 inch iMac. I gave the old Mac to a friend and she will be using it for another three to five years. If all you use a computer for is the internet, why should speed matter? Four years from now that Mac will still be worth some money on Ebay. Your average PC is in a land fill after two years. "Indeed, as Beeblebrox pointed out, the cost of repairing a Mac when it does go wrong is ridiculously high, as is the cost of buying standard memory from Apple. " But, very little goes wrong with a Mac; much less than your junky PC. There are plenty of places to buy memory and disk drives from, so why pay Apple's price? I placed 4 Gigabytes of memory in my 24 inch iMac, a year ago, from Otherworld computing for less than $120. Besides, how do you avoid the accusation of "anecdotal evidence" except by comparing to the cost of ownership of organizations with hundreds of computers of each type? The fact that it cost those organizations two to three times as much money to maintain a PC for the same total life expectancy as a Mac is important. A home user may not calculate the time, effort and money to keep their machine running, but businesses must. Often, a home PC becomes so bogged down after a few years that it is not worth the money to pay an expert to clean it out and fix it up, so you junk it and state anew. But that adds to the cost of ownership of the PC, because the Mac is still useful. "This is nothing to do with “low mileage” (where do you dream up this nonsense?). " I was describing his situation. Placing few demands on a computer can lengthen its life expectancy, just like for a car. "The inside of a current Mac is fundamentally no different from that of a PC. Same chipset, same memory manufacturer, same CPU, same disk manufacturer, same motherboard and assembly factory in Taiwan and same graphics chip." Yes, and no. There is a much wider variation on the PC side in quality, durability and mean times to repair. There are levels of junk that you can't believe there. Yes, you can sometimes get bargains, but only at the price of becoming an expert. I have better uses for my time than that. It does not make me enough money. "And for all this rhetoric about “quality”, I had to replace my original iMac G5 20” *three* times and my iMac Intel 2.8GHz 24” once. Thank God for Apple Care - did you factor the cost of Apple Care into the cost of an Apple? " I tried Apple Care on my goosenecked flat screen iMac, six years ago, but never had any problem with it. I decided to forgo it on my new 24 inch iMac. Right now, I'm not considering that cost. So far, I heard of no major issues with this computer. I don't know if my decision is wise or not. ""I never needed an extended warranty for my PC’s as it was so easy to source and replace components. Are you saying that the hardware problems you had on your PC were inconsequential? And the time, effort and money you spent to keep it repaired was worth nothing, right? The time needed to make yourself into an expert is worth nothing, right? " (This last statement may sound at odds with my original statement about Apple components being the same as PC components, but the difference is that Apple make subtle differences - like using EFI instead of BIOS, integrated graphics, customer motherboard shapes, etc that mean it is impossible to do anything more than replace the memory and disk drive)." The EFI issue is Microsoft's fault. BIOS is antiquated--twenty-five years old, but Microsoft won't offer you the choice. No--wait, I'm wrong. Vista has EFI, right? System 7 certainly will. Who knows if System 7 will be good enough to persuade PC users to move on from Windows XP which is stuck on BIOS. I hardly think that this issue reflects well on Microsoft. BIOS forces a really screwed up file management system. Apple is slowly moving on toward using Sun's "Zettabyte file system" as standard. It has a number of advantages and will be standard on Snow Leopard 10.6 server. It will become the desktop's boot file system in one or two years. "In any event, I remain highly skeptical of the “independent studies” showing major TCO differences between Mac and PC use in the Enterprise. " There are many independent sources, besides firms. School boards and Universities have published their cost of maintenance--before and after they switched vendors. PC's always cost them more to maintain; more than enough to make up for a lower initial PC hardware price. But, if you are blind, nothing will persuade you. "Frankly, the fact that you *cannot* use a Mac in the Enterprise in the same way as you can a PC (due to a total lack of Enterprise software) inevitably means that there will be less work to do. " Where did you get that idea? That is old data, Paul. There are only a few software items, mostly they are from Microsoft, like Outlook software, which has no replacement on the Mac. Microsoft's Exchange software is on the iPhone now and will be in Snow Leopard 10.6 due out in two to five months. Even AutoCad has moved to the Mac. The Real estate listing programs, which had been Windows only, are now ported. When Apple has 10% and growing of the US computer market that is enough reason for the good Windows programs to be ported. The bad Windows programs can stay where they are. Besides, I never cited Enterprise as an example. I used the Small to Medium sized business market which has 58% of American employees. Not the big companies which have more than 200 employees and IT departments which have special purchasing demands. Apple is not directly catering to them. "I also doubt the studies are ever independent - who would fund such a study unless they had a point to prove?" One can have a point to prove and still be honest. Gardner publishes this information to sell you their business solutions. My problem with much of the Microsoft advocates is that they aren't honest. Certainly, none of your arguments make sense or can be backed up with hard evidence.