Apple - it's about iMacs not iPhones
- 23 Jan 08, 08:33 GMT
In London's Apple store on a damp January evening the tills were besieged by customers buying not just iPods but shiny new iMacs. It's what the economics world calls "anecdotal evidence" and should be taken with a pinch of salt - but Apple's latest financial results do show its renewed strength as a computer maker.
Wall Street marked the shares down sharply - more evidence of the way the mood around technology stocks has darkened - but that was because of Apple's typically cautious guidance on future earnings, not because of a performance in the last quarter which was difficult to fault.
Apple shipped 2.3 million Macs in the last quarter - up 44% on a year ago. This in the year that the company changed its name from Apple Computer to Apple Inc to reinforce the message about its new role as a music, video and telecoms giant. True, iPod sales were up (but only 5% on the year) and it is the aura that the device has created which has helped drive people back to the Mac. Now the trick is to keep them there.
I'm still not convinced that, in business terms, the iPhone is more than a brilliant way of promoting the Apple brand. Sales of 2.3 million in the quarter keep it on track for Steve Jobs' very modest target of 10 million (about 1% of world shipments) by the end of 2008. But sales in Europe (no breakdown last night) appear to be slowing, and the deal to bring the iPhone to China is on hold.
So Apple looks like a niche player in telecoms, is struggling to make a big impact in video and can't really expect to be bigger in music than it already is. So it's back to the Mac - but with millions now apparently ready to pay a premium price for an Apple computer in preference to a Windows machine, that is not a bad place to be.
Now how about a new name. Apple Computers, anyone?
This post is closed to new comments.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
This is dot.life - a blog about technology from Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News.
Rory Cellan-Jones is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's technology correspondent.
Maggie Shiels is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's tech reporter based in Silicon Valley.
Archive
« January 2010
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Being Discussed Now
- Logging out... and straight back in(3)
- Gadgets of the Noughties(20)
- Plastic Logic's long journey to Vegas(21)
- Sexting teens(17)
- Wikipedia on the wane?(49)
- 'Cooling-off' for mobile phones? Not on the High Street(37)
- 2009 - the social year(36)
- Twitter, Iran and #uksnow(25)
- Broadband Britain - how far down the league?(55)
- Microsoft and Murdoch: Teaming up to bash Google?(34)
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Technology Headlines
- %28none%29
%28none%29 - %28none%29
%28none%29 - %28none%29
%28none%29
Visit the Technology index
Visit the
Rory's TV/Radio reports
-
Broadcast: 3 April 2009 -
Broadcast: 2 April 2009 -
Broadcast: 23 March 2009 -
Broadcast: 16 March 2009 -
Broadcast: 12 March 2009
Feeds
- News Editors
- Sport Editors
- Journalism Labs
- Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Internet Blog
- Radio 4 Blog
- Peston's Picks
- Nick Robinson's Newslog
- Stephanomics
- Mark Easton's UK
- Mark Mardell's America
- Nick Bryant's Australia
- Andrew Harding on Africa
- Gavin Hewitt's Europe
- Soutik Biswas' India
- dot.Rory
- Science: Jonathan Amos
- Richard Black on environment
- Today: Tom Feilden
- Fergus Walsh's medical files
- Newsnight: Paul Mason
- Newsnight: Mark Urban
- Torin Douglas
- Will Gompertz's arts
- Phil Coomes on photojournalism
- Magazine Monitor
- Mark D'Arcy in Westminster
- NI: Mark Devenport
- Scotland: Brian Taylor
- Scotland: Douglas Fraser
- Wales: Betsan Powys
- Martin Rosenbaum on FOI
- 5 Live Breakfast
- Newsnight
- PM programme (iPM)
- World Tonight: Robin Lustig
Comments
I wouldn't say Apple are a niche player in telecoms, how about just new? And watch closely as they change the way deals are done with carriers and how much better phones become for end users now the competition is hotting up.
Why change the name back to Apple Computers when they are so obviously more than that?
Apple aren't perfect, they are more user driven than a lot of companies but they are still out there to make a profit, it just so happens that I like most of their products. You just have to read between the lines of the Steve Jobs marketing machine to get the real facts!
This article is a very strange angle on a very successful time at Apple. I guess some people just don't like that.
I think Apple should be slightly more aggressive in getting their machines into peoples home.
If Apple reduced the price of an iMac or MacBook by about £50 to £100 in the UK I think they'd find sales would go up by a lot and entice more people onto Macs.
But the whole point is that Apple doesn't need to be anything other than a niche player in the phone market.
Companies like Bang & Olufsen do very well as high-end niche providers of equipment that command a premium for high quality design. Apple can justify their market position with the rationale that they a providing a product where the value added is higher than those sitting in the nearly commoditised PC market.
The iPhone has not been stellar in Europe, but that has been for many reasons, not least of which that the European market is more cut-throat than the US and has a vastly different dynamic. I'm not sure how much that really registered in Cupertino, where perhaps they thought that being such a big jump in the US would be enough.
It is still very early times for Apple in the telecoms market and of course the iPhone in some ways has changed the users experience, i think if they want to success in this market they are going to have get alot more of the simply things right, e.g better Camera, easier text messaging etc.
As for the Mac of course computers is what they started out in and so its bound to be still there most bought product, but i also agree with Asif that they should reduce the price of the iMac and MacBook and this would drive greater sales.
It is still very early times for Apple in the telecoms market and of course the iPhone in some ways has changed the users experience, i think if they want to success in this market they are going to have get alot more of the simply things right, e.g better Camera, easier text messaging etc.
As for the Mac of course computers is what they started out in and so its bound to be still there most bought product, but i also agree with Asif that they should reduce the price of the iMac and MacBook and this would drive greater sales.
I agree with jackos comment, that this is a very strange article on Apple. They've just posted their most successful results in the history of the company, so Rory brings up the tired old argument about "paying a premium" for a Mac as well as other strange negative comments. How can a 44% rise in shipped computers possibly cause you to write this piece?
It's not a premium you pay for Apple Computers Rory, it's just a fact Apple doesn't produce cheap junk for £299. In the same way Ferrari don't produce an economical estate car for families, Apple won't produce a cut down, badly made computer, because it affects the user experience.
If you compare like for like specifications for an iMac, Mac mini or even a Mac Pro with similar spec machines from Dell, hp etc., you will find Apple to be very competitive or cheaper, and not mentioning the fact you get Leopard, iLife and the security that is not found anywhere on a Vista PC.
Apple's core business is always about selling Macs. iPods AppleTV, iPhone and of course their fantastic iWork and iLife software packages are all as attractive and easy to use as they are to get people to make the switch from PCs. It's working too, last year over 25% of Macs were bought by people who had never had one before. I am one of those very people after a long career as a Windows engineer.
I am a PC user both at work and at home where I use it primarily for gaming. I have looked at Macs occasionally in the past but am put off by the excessively high prices for the hardware I am being offered - yes, the OS may be superior to Windows, but the bits inside are the same mostly as in a PC (especially now that Macs use Intel chips). Therefore basically a Mac purchaser pays 2-300 pounds more and upwards for the same kit as a PC buyer with a promise that it wont crash as much. This seems ridiculously excessive and puts me off buying Apple products, no matter how pretty they look.
I am a PC user both at work and at home where I use it primarily for gaming. I have looked at Macs occasionally in the past but am put off by the excessively high prices for the hardware I am being offered - yes, the OS may be superior to Windows, but the bits inside are the same mostly as in a PC (especially now that Macs use Intel chips). Therefore basically a Mac purchaser pays 2-300 pounds more and upwards for the same kit as a PC buyer with a promise that it wont crash as much. This seems ridiculously excessive and puts me off buying Apple products, no matter how pretty they look.
I am a PC user both at work and at home where I use it primarily for gaming. I have looked at Macs occasionally in the past but am put off by the excessively high prices for the hardware I am being offered - yes, the OS may be superior to Windows, but the bits inside are the same mostly as in a PC (especially now that Macs use Intel chips). Therefore basically a Mac purchaser pays 2-300 pounds more and upwards for the same kit as a PC buyer with a promise that it wont crash as much. This seems ridiculously excessive and puts me off buying Apple products, no matter how pretty they look.
"Jamie Kelly wrote: ...If you compare like for like specifications for an iMac, Mac mini or even a Mac Pro with similar spec machines from Dell, hp etc., you will find Apple to be very competitive or cheaper..."
Are you having a laugh?
I agree the price of their Desktop PCs has dropped in recent years making them a more viable family option, but if you look at the other end of the market they are still way over priced. You can't brag about the added benefits if you charge an extorsional amount for them.
For instance, and I must point out that I like Macs and would have one if I could afford one, the standard MacBook Pro with the Hi-Res Screen option. Apple Price £1858.99 - Ouch!
The top spec Dell Vostro 1720 with the WUXGA option. £727.33 - even with the processor upgrade (from 2.2GHx to 2.4 Ghz to match the MacBook Pro) the price is £979.95, amd that included double the hard-drive space, 50% extra memory, same graphics card as found in the MacBook Pro, same hi-res screen, same webcam, same DVD drive, and a 9-cell Lithium-ion Battery.
Ok, it's not as streamlined or beautiful to look at but at that price difference I could have 2 and have one at home and one at the office and not have to carry one at all!!!
Sean. Macs aren't just about good looks and it isn't just about using the 'same' components. The fact is that Macs are put together better than most other 'off the shelf' branded computers.
There are obvious exceptions of course, Alienware and the new Commodore range are obviously well put together and made with well thought out ideas, rather than the cut and shut PC makers you often find. (Oh and see if you can spec an Alienware PC for much less than them, you will because it isn't all about component price, it's about how it's put together and the support that you get!)
Apple aren't perfect, they just seem to try and make the user experience much better. Even the packaging is amazing and well thought out.
It might be intel inside, but it's a Mac on the outside and much better for it!
@ Sean
"I have looked at Macs occasionally in the past but am put off by the excessively high prices for the hardware I am being offered"
Sean, your opinion should stay in the past. High prices? Spec a Mac with a PC of similar spec and you will be surprised.
It still amazes me the amount of people who say "well I tried Macs in the past..."
Why not try one today? Walk into an Apple Store and find out about the Macs that are available now, not 5 years ago.
I'm an IT professional, I use Windows, Linux, Solaris and now MacOS X, I bought a MAC to avoid Vista (frankly) I guess, I need a machine that can run applications that do not run on Linux . . . I bought a Macbook Pro . . . I am disappointed.
The latest operating system, Leopard, is simply not reliable or robust, frequent crashes ruin the experience. I expected slick and pretty, what I have is sick and pretty (when it works). The keyboard misses key presses, some OS or hardware issue I guess (Apple locked the discussion thread on their website when people complained of this issue) many others have the same problem.
My (free) Linux operating system never crashes, my old Windows XP installs never crash (these days) but my main recreation machine (this is what I bought the Mac for) is something I am now considering selling.
I'd gladly spend the money on the Apple hardware . . . but their software quality is terrible and for me that is simply unacceptable.
I'm an apple newbie, but perhaps not for long.
"Jamie Kelly wrote: ...If you compare like for like specifications for an iMac, Mac mini or even a Mac Pro with similar spec machines from Dell, hp etc., you will find Apple to be very competitive or cheaper..."
Are you having a laugh?
I agree the price of their Desktop PCs has dropped in recent years making them a more viable family option, but if you look at the other end of the market they are still way over priced. You can't brag about the added benefits if you charge an extorsional amount for them.
For instance, and I must point out that I like Macs and would have one if I could afford one, the standard MacBook Pro with the Hi-Res Screen option. Apple Price £1858.99 - Ouch!
The top spec Dell Vostro 1720 with the WUXGA option. £727.33 - even with the processor upgrade (from 2.2GHx to 2.4 Ghz to match the MacBook Pro) the price is £979.95, amd that included double the hard-drive space, 50% extra memory, same graphics card as found in the MacBook Pro, same hi-res screen, same webcam, same DVD drive, and a 9-cell Lithium-ion Battery.
Ok, it's not as streamlined or beautiful to look at but at that price difference I could have 2 and have one at home and one at the office and not have to carry one at all!!!
I agree with Jacko - this piece gives the impression of knocking the success story that is Apple's turnaround. This appears to be the current Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú editorial policy in covering any Apple Inc news. Maybe it's the fact that Apple has been so successful over the past few years and Microsoft cannot seem to put one foot in front of another at the moment that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is trying too hard to be impartial. Personally I do not call that a clear and transparent view at all.
Regarding Macs being too expensive - DUL DULL DULL. Read the reviews and look at the numbers. Quality costs no matter what the market. It simply is not an argument anymore.
Come on Apple COMPUTERS a better designed than their common flimsy p.c. counter parts, Then there is the much better and less bug ridden os, i have both pc and mac the reason for a pc ? games that is the only place that the mac natively lags behind a pc but hey i shall but now mac is intel based look at the games making their way over! so no need to put on Bindoos
I feel a great sense of relief reading this piece.
I am a young journalist and have been worrying I may not be able to keep up with the competition at the highest level.
However, it seems the Beeb will publish any old waffle from any old fool who still evidently thinks it is 1997. I can certainly beat that as, I imagine, can almost any person you care to ask.
As others have mentioned to trot out the older-than-time-itself premium argument is beyond ridiculous. You pay for what you get and what you get at Apple is a high end product whether that be a phone, an MP3 player, a computer, software or a video download.
The OS war is over no-one won!
I kind of agree somehow with Sean even though I've only ever bought macs. On the surface the difference between similarly specced Fujitsus and Macbooks mean you should get a Fujitsu.
That said, I also agree you aren't paying a premium for Apple - you pay for what you get: good, integrated design, easy to use, attractive, stable and safe and that includes the range of software available. iLife alone is probably worth £50-£100. Also the components may have the same sort of name, but the spec and way the circuitry is designed makes it better.
As a final comment, I think the blogger's point about Apple struggling in video is a red herring: all content deliverers are struggling in this space. With Apple TV take 2, they may just do this space what they've done in music.
@ Matt
"Are you having a laugh?"
Me sir? No I am not having a laugh.
Yes, you could buy 2 Dell Vostro machines, and you'll most likely need the other one as a spare when the first goes back for repair.
Dell are a commodity supplier. They use cheap parts (a lot more goes into a PC than you mention) and they also have an awful failure rate compared to Apple, do a google search for customer satisfaction ratings and you will see Apple are top by a country mile.
This is the reason Apple products aren't cheap - they don't use rubbish parts, and they integrate everything in such a way it is simply not possible for Dell to do (and I'm talking about OS integration too, Leopard didn't just appear magically, hundreds of engineers created it).
Like I have always said, and a lot of others on this forum agree with me - you get what you pay for.
Just download and install Ubuntu on your existing PC!
Wont cost you a penny, and its rock-solid and when customised looks as good (arguably better than) as OSX. Thousands of sofware applications available as well, which are also free!
Give it a go.. if you dont like it which I guarantee you will just uninstall it.
I will for the moment always buy a windows based system because it is simply a far better gaming platform, which is mainly why I use it.
I know that Macs will run windows and windows games now, but am not convinced it will offer the same kind of benefit that a purely windows based pc would offer.
One of the main reasons for me not buying a Mac is upgrade ability. It is notoriously difficult to get components, notoriously difficult to install them when you do get them (unless you pay Apple an arm and a leg to do it for you). PC is far far superior in this respect. I should know - I built my own high spec machine for half the price of a similarly specced Mac, and as yet have had ZERO problems!
The comparatively high costs of Macs (and lets not be unrealistic, they are expensive in comparison and really aren't THAT much better) means that they are only really going to be of benefit for people using media applications - something I admit that Macs do far better.
There is no winner as has been said. If you want an office or gaming pc then a windows based one is the best way to go. If you do a lot of graphic design and media work then a Mac is the way to go.
Until either Microsoft or Apple prove me wrong...
I am a PC user both at work and at home where I use it primarily for gaming. I have looked at Macs occasionally in the past but am put off by the excessively high prices for the hardware I am being offered - yes, the OS may be superior to Windows, but the bits inside are the same mostly as in a PC (especially now that Macs use Intel chips). Therefore basically a Mac purchaser pays 2-300 pounds more and upwards for the same kit as a PC buyer with a promise that it wont crash as much. This seems ridiculously excessive and puts me off buying Apple products, no matter how pretty they look.
Nice post. iPhone sales are slower than hyped in the UK and I can't see a huge amount of sales in China where they probably make the things in the first place. There's plenty of competition out there too - from the Nokia N95 super-phone to the Nokia N800 Internet tablet to a glut of MP3 media players are really cheap prices and of course here in the UK the mobile phone market is much more competitive than the US (where even Bluetooth is crippled!)
There are a lot comments about Apple quality - as far as I know they do control the hardware components so there's less scope for problems, whereas Microsoft lost that game a long time ago - but there are problems with over-heating and dead pixels and for the money you can get a better, just-as-reliable machine from the upper ranges of most manufacturers (most manufacturers have sullied their names with cheap models in their range that are not made to the same standard as their expensive models - Apple has not done this).
IMHO the Apple OS is the winner here - it works well, looks cool, and has a lot of great software out-of-the-box. Software vendors also make great software for the Mac - stuff like the totally beautiful OmniGraffle.
That being said, the KDE variant of Ubuntu is just as cool and runs on any PC hardware and it's free and is likely to over-take Apple OS one day soon. I still get nods of approval from fellow technical people when I take my Thinkpad T41 out of my bag (the T41 looks boring but runs like a Swiss clock) and start up Kubuntu - or when I start up my iPod and play FLACs from Rockbox.
I own both mac and pc, Ipod and an iPhone and where as the iPhone is probably apples best product, my iPod was riddled with annoyances and although my iPhone has been repaired twice in 3 months its still good.
However my self built pc running vista is much better than my MacBook pro not just in terms of price but like it or not but the internal components have identical build quality to my g5 at work. Its a lie that macs are better, it all boils down to looks and the os. I use leapoard and it frequently messes up as much as windows.
Don't beleive all the fan boys on both sides... Try to go with what suits you as a user and don't follow a label!!
Everyone agrees Apple are doing well today but their current success may be short lived if history can teach us anything. Apple should learn from previous mistakes and open up their technogy.
How big would Apple be today (and how much smaller might Microsoft be) if Apple had licensed their Mac O/S in the 1980's.
By sticking to a proprietary model and trying to lock customers in they limit the size of their opportunity and confine themselves to being niche players with single digit market share. Even the music market is changing and moving away from their DRM model. The model they are using with the iPhone will limit their success and the Mac is a great machine that has failed to live up to its (market) opportunity.
Fergus Duncan wrote: The latest operating system, Leopard, is simply not reliable or robust, frequent crashes ruin the experience.
Now Duncan, you say you're an IT professional.... Leopard (OSX 10.5)is so stable it's crazy, better than Tiger (OSX 10.4) was. The operating system is robust, easy to use and carries all the required drivers etc. that the average user requires. I've never had any version of Windows that's intuitive. It just sits there wondering what just got plugged in (even XP & Vista).
If I were you I'd question yourself and not the software. Maybe you have a strange Macbook, but I even doubt that.
"Jamie Kelly wrote - Sean, your opinion should stay in the past. High prices? Spec a Mac with a PC of similar spec and you will be surprised."
Pity that your argument Jamie is damaged by the attitude you use to put it forward.
My assessment of costings is based on last year when i ended up buying a new PC - I looked around and bought an Alienware PC for £1600 which has spec far beyond anything Mac could produce for the same price.
There was a time when people wanted as much as possible for as little as possible. It seems now people will pay a little more for that extra quailty. Economy is running well, the UK is pretty spolit country in many aspects.
Soon everything will be based up on form. We know we have the functions, the ability to make things work no matter what, so people will expect everything to look good.
It seems to me that Apple are ahead of the game at the moment. They try to keep things simple, look nice and overall do exactly what they are supposed to do.
I think iTunes needs a suitable redesign to make it more intuitive, the operating system needs a few more tweaks - but it is a new revision, but overall i'd rather sit here in front of a Mac all day than muck about with a PC. £800 for a new iMac is a reasonable price.
@Fergus Duncan
Fergus, I'm truly sorry that you seem to have had a bad experience with Apple products. I can say that you are in the minority and perhaps have purchased a lemon. I have owned many Macs over the years, the latest of which are better than ever, and Leopard is brilliant. I don't think any of my machines have crashed, at all for as long as I can remember. Mac OSX IS solid, reliable and a joy to use, as is the hardware it runs on. I suggest you take your MacBook Pro back to Apple while you still have a warranty and insist on a replacement. Once you have a machine that isn't a lemon, I guarantee you will have "slick and pretty", as you wanted!
Sean (and everybody else, yeah, you at the back too!)
You are right in the fact that you can pick up a branded PC from a store for cheaper than you can buy a Mac. Go for it.
However, as I pointed out earlier, you will not get the overall quality, support and indeed experience that you will get from the Mac.
Don't just focus on components, it's not that simple.
For the high end stuff, I just looked on the alienware web site :
Area-51™ 7500 (with 19" TFT) - £995
Apple iMac (with built in 20") - £949
The specs are very similar, in tact, the Mac is better specced. (Optional extras aside!)
And if you look at the really high end, the Mac Pro now comes with 8cores and is cheaper than the 'equivalent' alienware model.
Although this isn't an exact comparison, the prices are similar and proves that Macs are comparative if you compare like for like. Or if you want, compare apples with Apples!
Oh and all Macs come with OS X and iLife and stress free living!
Fergus Duncan wrote: The latest operating system, Leopard, is simply not reliable or robust, frequent crashes ruin the experience.
I have been using Mac OS's for 20 years, and know lots of other professionals that do, and all agree the Leopard OS is everything it was advertised as, your comments are ill advised and biased i fear you are a PC user with an axe to grind. If I am wrong and you really have a mac, my guess is it's a cloned copy
As mentioned above the idea that Apple equipment carries considerably higher price tags is simply a hangover from the days where this WAS the case.
In fact looking at iMacs its difficult to find similar PC hardware that demonstrates the design, quality, performance and footprint of these unique systems.
Of course it is true that you can get a PC for just a few hundred pounds. But if you want to actually do anything this machine, like run MS Windows Vista properly then you will struggle.
iMacs offer glorious quality HD displays, built in DVD writers, built in iSight cameras, great processors and supporting hardware. Of course this is only part of the story - they also come with Mac OS X Leopard and iLife 08.
Regardless of whether or not you prefer PCs over Mac or vice versa or you simply hate Macs for no reason as many PC users seem to do you cannot base any realistic argument on price.
I have a Mac iBook & a very reliable laptop it's proven to be over the 2 years+ I've owned it. I also find the mature OS X (10.4 Tiger version) to be excellent, as I'm sure Leopard (10.5) will prove to be when it's updated in the next few weeks. However, I'll be considering a PC desktop as my next computer purchase.
Apple make great computers & have the best, most intuitive OS (also virus-free) available today, but their consumer desktop models are relatively niche. If you want an upgradeable desktop Mac, Apple offers nothing but the Mac Pro at over £2,000 (with decent monitor). I think that the limited choice of Mac hardware is a significant obstacle to many more people switching over from PC.
so many agendas so many misleading comments.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's fixation with Apple continues unabated. I wonder do you just rotate the business stories between Apple and Marks & Spencer and hope no-one will notice? But there is a fundamental point here. Why do Apple warrant this coverage, they are after all a small player in the home compute market, flogging to a tiny minority of users have failed to set the telecoms market alight, and in the only market they do have any real penetration in (portable mp3 devices) is, in the grand scale of things, tiddly. Apple get far more coverage than - lets pluck a random example out of the air - Dell. Why is this.
Someone earlier made the point comparing B&O to Apple. It's a point well made. B&O are another company producing over priced, but aethestically pleasing products, which are comfortably out performed by cheaper alternatives - as even a casual read of any Hi-Fi magazine will testify.
Oh and on a completely unrelated note why doesn't this page work properly in Opera?
You don't pay a premium for an Imac or any other apple computer, you pay for something that works, is quiet and efficient.
Since I dumped 'the one that shall not be named' I have achieved more productivity, less stress and and more leisure time.
Sure , Apple has problems (Java 6 , now)!!, but in comparison to what I was struggling with before, where I spent more time trying to keep it up, excuse the pun, than actually doing something useful, no contest.
It sits in the corner, its called SickNote.
I rest my case
I'm a Mac, PC, Blackberry, Palm, iPhone and iPod user.
I thought the original article was a good one, but I'm slightly nonplussed by some of the comments (and the fact that several of them are repeated a fair few times, multiple posts by people who claim to have no computer problems).
Whatever the hardware does, it's my view that the Apple OS is vastly more useful and user friendly than the Windows system. I'm not really into the 'my system never crashes' argument. It's true that the Mac OS basically never crashes, but that doesn't mean that things don't ever go wrong. My Dell PC almost never crashes either, though it goes in cycles of doing strange things: it can be fine for weeks, and then start to go wrong again.
Mac OS X's latest incarnation Leopard is still in an early phase, and it's got a few problems, most notably with Windows IIS proxies. I'm running it on my PowerBook and my wife has it on her iMac, but, at work, for our graphics G5 and MacBook Pros we are sticking with the previous OS Tiger until the problems are sorted out.
The real Mac advantage is in the way the applications all fit together neatly and co-operate with the Finder. They even share spell-checkers, audio, video and image filters. This all makes for a faster, easier, more productive workflow.
In many ways, these are the virtues that the iPhone offers: the technology is more limited than its competitors, but the integration and the experience is superb. If the iPhone persuades customers of the value of integration over specifications, then, to paraphrase Rory Cellan-Jones points out, the iPhone may be the fuse that reignites the Mac for the mass market.
I am not here to stand a defiance against the PC crowd, but I think a lot of people miss the point of Apple's pricing.
Yes, you can match the 'obvious' specs between Apple and PC vendors, but there is a lot more to it than that. Specifically talking about the Macbook Pro, you get features like sudden motion sensor to protect the harddrive, it's super quiet, backlit keyboard, lightweight aluminium enclosure, digital audio output, built-in mic, environmentally friendly product (at least more so), firefire 400/800, dual-layer DVDRW drive and, as mentioned, a great OS and software collection and a good support service; even Macs break sometimes!
Yes, it is a lot of money but it's not a wasted premium and this level of quality does extend down the product line.
Of course Macs may not be to everyone's taste, but that's fine by me.
A lot of people are talking about specs. When buying any computer you should buy what you require and not what is marketed as the ultimate super computer. Apple create computers for all levels of computing. They are powerful enough to do what most users want or need to do and go to a level (and cost) for high end users such as business or movie studios. For example a fully fledged Mac Pro can be upgraded and reach prices in the 10's of thousands of pounds. I dont think ive ever seen a pc costing £50,000
.
For HOME COMPUTING the mac is a reasonable price, excellent value, easy to use machine and will last you many years. For those about to choose a mac think about what you use it for and what you would like to try and then purchase the model based on these factors.
HP etc sell pcs with tonnes of software etc that most people never use. Dont be fooled by offers and add ons free printers etc. Buy what is appropriate to you. Countless times for eg. pensioners are being sold a £1000 Gaming PC from PC world but in reality just want a cheap machine to send emails and browse online.
Also an IT professional, I've been using a MacBook for the last month to try and get up to speed.
It's a nice piece of hardware (Though with a rubbishly unresponsive mouse - and no right-click, which is just stupid), I like the form factor, and the keyboard is great.
But as for the OS...I just don't get it. Using 10.4 and 10.5, I have more application crashes a week than I get on an XP machine in 3 months.
The interface is...well, it's OK, but nothing spectacular. Personally can't get to grips with how it treats windows, but that's probably just the learning curve.
What amazes me is the amount of GUI 101 errors, buttons that don't do anything, slight or invisible responses (Which *really* exasperates the mouse problem), windows staying hidden behind others when they should be alerting me; just really unimpressive all-round
The area where Apple have scored hugely is the user interface, which works superbly in all their products. It is an aspect they have simply got right, and that is what sells. That is not the same thing as having any particular edge in performance and reliability. The MAC OS is less virus ridden for example partly because it represents a small proportion of the overall market and is consequently of less interest to those who would bugger up your PC. The iPhone has not taken off quite as well here as in the US becuase the phone market is more competitive here with better phones providing more realistic competition. That, and the fact that the contract you are bound to by purchasing the iPhone legitimately blatantly takes the Mickey. I understand why those who use Apple equipment would defend it - it looks good and works reasonably well out of the box as so few products do, but that is only part of the story. Sometimes it's useful to look past the pretty package. And don't even get me started on the hopeless sound quality of MP3 players - including iPods.
I have been a MAC user for over ten years and all of my MAC's have shown resilience that my work PC's have never. For example 4 years ago I bought a ibook for work because I was given the option. It got bashed around went in and out of work everyday and was used constantly. Last year I changed jobs and I was give an HP instead, 8mths in and bits were falling off it, only one of the usb ports work now, it constantly crashes and I hate it. Meanwhile my old faithfull ibook sits at home still working as perfectly as the day I bought it (bar one dent to the case where I dropped it).
Having been professionally engaged in IT for 20 years (and having first programmed the things in the late 1960s!) I have a reasonably long perspective on the industry (and the 'OS wars'), and one clear point is that at least in corporate environments, long-term costs for Apple computer equipment are far, far lower than for Windows/PCs, because fewer people need to be employed to do less work to keep 'em running....
That said, there has always been a big disparity between US and European pricing, particularly from Apple, and this hugely colours peoples' perspectives on their computer equipment - historically it has much damaged their takeup within British companies, so it is no wonder that Apple had to branch out into other product streams.
Also, the Ives-era styling revolution that Apple has undergone, has brought a surprising number of dismissive remarks from potential buyers, who seem genuinely to believe that an attractive exterior must warn of something insubstantial inside! Apple can't win, really....
'Steve Jobs' very modest target of 10 million (about 1% of world shipments) by the end of 2008.'
Very modest? If you want, you can give me 1% of the revenue of the world's cellphone shipment. I will accept this modest sum with open arms
Macs are expensive, high end PCs are expensive. I wouldn't buy either.
If you are a average person who just wants to do a little word processing, spreadsheets, surfing, DVDs, music etc, then a low to mid range PC is all you need.
I've got a Toshiba PC notebook, purchased for £500. Vista works perfectly and the machine does everything I want, no problems.
I've read this whole debate and can't believe that no-one has commented that Apples taste better than Windows.
So many subjective opinions, so little time...
First of all let's dispel a few myths:
1) OSX does crash (by which I mean "doesn't do what it damn well should") comparably so with Windows which is a bit worrying considering Windows is built to work with an almost infinite variation of components whereas OSX is built for... err... one.
2) Outside the IT community no-one really cares about the ins and outs of operating systems. Frankly, you could still be using a variant of Windows 95 for most people and it would do what they want. Yes, Leopard is currently better than Vista (although neither is as good as XP for common usage) but so what? Who's really going to notice? Aside from the nannying security that Vista has which SP1 will thankfully remove, that is.
3) Apple PCs are over priced for what they are but then so are Alienware PCs. You could argue you pay for customer service but there are other manufacturers out there with equally good service and well built machines that don't cost anything like what they charge.
4) The Mac share of the market has increased for one main reason: They now run XP and Windows Apps. Anybody thinking that it's because most people outside Apple fanboys want to use OSX is deluded.
5) As Apple's share of the market increases so will the number of viruses targeting OSX. OSX isn't any more secure than any other mature OS. Bluntly, no-one cares enough to write custom viruses for less than 5% of the market especially when half of them are using XP anyway.
I wish people would just get a sense of perspective. Macs aren't any better than good PCs and whatever one you choose is largely going to be down to personal preference.
I'm only slightly surprised that a piece which talks of Apple's "renewed strengths as a computer maker" and of results that are "difficult to fault" should be treated by some as a devastating attack on the company. It seems this is one business where an impartial view is not acceptable to some.
This was a piece about Apple as a business - not specifically about the products, which are undeniably very attractive.
A couple of points. The suggestion that you pay a premium price for Apple computers is hardly controversial - indeed that has been central to Apple's strategy over the years. The company has no ambition to make bland boxes with low margins for the mass market - it believes consumers will pay a premium price for a superior product, and boasted on Tuesday that gross margin had been better than expected.
As for my line about the ambitions for the iPhone amounting to just one percent of the market, I'm talking about all mobile shipments, not just smartphones. The smartphone category is almost impossible to define (does it mean a phone with 3g and a 5 MP camera?)so it is more sensible to talk about the whole market. It is true that it will be an impressive achievement for Apple to capture one percent of that from a standing start. But on the day that Nokia revealed that it had boosted its market share to 40 percent it is more clear than ever that the iPhone is just a niche product, albeit one that has made other players sharpen up their act.
Oh, and by the way, Apple shares are now down about 15% since the results were published, on worries that future ipod and iphone sales may disappoint. Of course, the market may be over-reacting on the way down just as it did on the way up - but my original point, that computers are the current engine of growth for Apple, still stands.
lol you guys must be using windows!
THURSDAY
24th January 2008
Text only
502
Service not available.
Unfortunately a server error occured whilst trying to retrieve this page:
/cgi-perl/mt/mt-comments.cgi
We are currently working to correct this
Who is this clown writing this stuff? Apple only entered the telecom market recently. It also did not become the largest computer provider by the bullying tactics of Microsoft. Your report is just a pew pew of Apple. For us who work with computers Apple's products and support have been a leaf others should look to copy.
I work in the IT depart of a U.S. company and we have done cost, ease of use, support studies etc, and the Mac came out tops. We switched. We now do not have a server solely dedicated to to windows patches, and boy there are so many. Not to mention software and hardware conflicts,
viruses for witch we have had to shut down and clean out etc. The only thing I could say about working in IT and windows is job security. Apple has equaled productivity.
(Reposted due to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site timing out - it might post twice!!!!)
Mark (post 46)
1) - Is that your experience, or just a guess? As a new Mac user, I have had one crash in 8 months and a couple of application freezes. My XP boxes freezes, crashes and generally goes crazy much more often.
2) That's true to an extent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and educate users otherwise. The fact is, OS X is a damn site more responsive than XP / Vista. Especially after many months use.
The way applications are handled in XP / Vista means that will always be the case. With OS X you simply copy 1 (one) file - the application, to a place of your choice and it runs. Generally speaking, you don't 'install' in the way you do with Windows, so you don't get all the mess! (And no registry!!!!)
3) Again, true to an extent. Apples can appear more expensive compared with an off the shelf Dell, but the quality of the Mac is outstanding, as is the overall user experience, which if you've never bought one, you'll never know what I mean.
4) Possibly true, but I guess we'll never know. I bought a Mac because I began to hate XP, I needed to re-install (again!) and didn't want to just install XP, looked at Vista and thought better of it. I went to an Apple store and bought a Mac Mini. Windows has never touched my Mac and hopefully never will! (I must be one of the deluded ones for wanting OS X !!!)
5) Again, I guess only time will tell. But as OS X is 'based' on unix, it is secure, but it does have security issues and will continue to have. But compared to XP (which is a mature OS) it's way more secure!
I think the user needs more education on security as well as OS's being more secure.
Overall, I just don't think people understand the benefits of using OS X over Win XP / Vista.
The whole Mac switching experience has lifted my productivity and made computing fun again! And no, I don't think Steve Jobs is god, indeed I actually think he's a bit of a ****
theorangebuffalo.com
I'm reading all of this on my Mac, and no crashes so far. Infact I've been reading stuff like this since my first LCIII in 1993 - no viruses, no spyware, few crashes, and I keep coming back for more this is Mac number 6 ...
All up, you buy what you want, computers are like religion, I;m not into converting but my friends with PC's have ... "a laptop" my friends with Mac's have a relationship with it/him/her. It becomes a "friend", I just love the way Mac users anthropomorphise their machines. That "bond" is worth a few hundred quid, dollars, rupee whatever ... in the end though you buy what you can afford and what you want.
Rory,
Of course "computers are the current engine of growth for Apple". That's what Apple have always done and are getting better at all the time.
However, they have branched out into other markets that have showed huge potential and have shown insight into these markets that Microsoft can only dream about. (What's the Internet? Said Mr Gates back in 95!)
These markets, especially the iphone market are very, very new and Apple are making bold moves to change the way these markets work. Handset makers, do not set the terms that Apple have now set and this may be the change the industry has needed.
I am not an Apple 'fanboy' by the way, Apple is a company out to make a profit and I'm no 'true' believer of all that Mr Jobs spouts, but Apple has more innovation, intuition and simplicity than many other IT company's have.
I have stated elsewhere on this page that Apples computers are a premium price, as you get more in the package than the components suggest. The build quality is superb and the overall experience of just unpacking the thing is amazing (as stupid as that sounds!).
As for the "Apple shares are down since results published". Hmmm.. What's happened in the US (and the world) since then, maybe a dramatic economic slump? Would that affect shares of Apple, of course.
I was a Windows user all the way back to 3.11. My PC still has XP, since upgrading would basically mean buying a new PC. My biggest hate is the depressing ease of picking up viruses and spyware. Running a decent anti-virus program is of course essential, but there is a performance hit for doing so.
The other big hate I had was the Registry. If you tend to install new programs on a regular basis the Registry gets bloated in no time, making your PC run slower and slower until you re-install the whole system. Several years of security updates etc slow the whole thing down as well.
I finally got fed up of Windows hassle and bought a MacBook Pro. I think there is a price difference between a similar spec Windows machine, but the extra cost is easily worth it in my opinion. I have installed many applications and it runs as fast as the day I opened the box it came in, and very very stable. Indeed the one and only time it completely locked up forcing a restart was due to Microsoft Office (go figure!).
One other thing to factor into the price is that (in my experience) Macs tend to be useful for longer than a Windows machine. I bought one of the iBook Clamshell models off of eBay (because I always loved the look of them). It dates from 2000 and yet runs Tiger surprisingly quickly. Vista wouldn't even run on a machine that old, and low spec. XP may boot but I doubt you could do much else. Once you apply all of the security updates etc it would be even worse.
I'm not claiming a Mac is best for everyone. Gamers will be better off with a high-spec Windows PC, but for most other users I think they'd actually be very pleasantly surprised by how nice Macs are.
Jacko, in reply:
1. Experience. I use both and would say neither is really better than the other. The only thing I would say is that MS OS tend to be more fragile on first release than Apple's but once they're fixed they don't give any more problems.
That said, the MS based PCs I use always have quality components in them so perhaps it's more to do with that than anything else. The main point was to counter the absurd notion that Apple machines never crash because they actually do.
2. I think we all agree Vista original release was a disappointment. This seems to have extended to MS themselves judging by industry gossip as there are strong rumours they are looking to accelerate the development of Windows 7. Apple may have stolen a march just now but I'm not sure that will always be the case (I still maintain XPSP2 is better than Tiger for example) so focusing on the fine points of a particular OS is kind of pointless as most people only care if it does what they need.
But yes, Leopard is better than Vista at the moment.
3. I use them but haven't bought one (just as I haven't bought my Lenovo laptop or other work PCs). I acknowlwedge they have excellent build quality and I would expect that for the price just as I would expect the same from a PC if I was paying that amount of money for it. I maintain that, like everything else in this life, you get what you pay for.
4. Fair enough. I think it's an excellent marketing strategy to allow your units to use a competitor's OS though and one which has clearly worked for Apple.
5. I'd dispute that because, as mentioned, I think that's more down to fewer opportunities than inate security.
I don't dislike Macs by any means, I just get a bit annoyed when people make erroneous comparisons between £400 bargain basement Dells and £1500 iMacs.
Come on Rory, for heavens sakes. Can you spell or say
E C O S Y S T E M ?
1. Jobs' 'modest target' of 10m iPhones by end 08? When iPhone was announced you all said it was a ridiculous target. iPhone is 200 days old roughly, and the biggest impact from it will only come after Apple releases the SDK pack to developers in February.
2. Can't you see that everything Apple is now doing revolves around OS X and Quicktime? iPhone, iPods Macs TV. The ecosystem that is OS X is only just getting going. There are going to be myriads more products of all shapes and sizes delivering content to users at home and on the move. Content being internet, music and video.
And before anyone jumps to the usual stupid conclusion that Apple is all closed then think again. At every turn, the OS, video, music, Apple makes use of and delivers back to the open source community.
No Rory, it isn't JUST about iPhone, or just about Macs, or iPod. It is about OS X and a phenomenal strategy that is delivering a fabulous, workable ecosystem for consumers and soon, business as well.
To the gentlemen Nick Smith who said earlier "and no right-click, which is just stupid."
This is a common Mac myth. All apple's current laptops have a right click. Simply open "system preferences," click "keyboard and mouse" then check the "for secondary clicks, place two fingers on the trackpad then click the button."
This is quite intuitive, and even my technologically illiterate mother managed it! Just place two fingers on the trackpad, in the same manner as you would for two finger scrolling in os x.
As you are a self professed IT professional, perhaps you are familiar with the acronym RTFM?
Are you still trying to say Macs are more expensive than PC's????
Maybe if you aren't doing anything that requires any real computing power.
Macs, however, are built to do a lot more than PC's in the first place, so it really is Apples against oranges.
I use intensive software applications, and a PC that will do the same work, from Dell or HP, actually costs significantly more, than an iMac, that will do the same job.
Someone isn't doing their homework.
Why does everyone bother with this? This type of debate is always a stalemate.
I love my pc because blah Dell blah Games, blah
I use ubuntu is rock solid etc etc
I use apple blah blah blah
Who really cares? Everyone has their own wants and needs for using a different operating system. Theres a million debates like this one all over the web
I use apple, I love apple products. I dont want anyone else in the fg club you'll only spoil it for the rest of us with your viruses anyway.
End of
My current machine was lovingly hand built. If features a dual core cpu and high quality ram. The graphics card is of a good standard and the power supply is more than sufficent for its needs. It runs dual screens and dual boots. Where did I buy this machine? in several places then built it myself in my front room. It runs xp and Ubuntu. Sadly I am unable to get a mac os to try as they are tied to the mac machines. Oh and I just bought a Asus eee that runs linux.......WOW
Please bear in mind I am not an expert in all things computer, just a user.
I pondered long and hard on my next computer purchase when my Dell Desk Top began going wrong after 3 1/2 years of home use. I opted for a 24" iMac and am glad of it. My study at home has far less cabling and looks good, as I could throw away all the connected peripherals, required by the Pc, nicely wireless.
There are many comments about stability, my experience has been good with Leopard, my machine is on all the time and I am not experiencing speed loss because of this. At work I have to use the company provided lap top (Not so old) and I have to reboot at least every 3 days to clean up what ever a PC does when you reboot and will then get 3 days of reasonable performance, yes I do de-frag the Pc regularly etc.
When I priced up a new Pc with large monitor, camera with very similar specs etc the iMac was actually very competitive in price
I am happy with the change and the ease of use.
My pennies worth
I have been using PCs and Macs as a professional since they were invented, and Unix machines since the early 80s . I always preferred a PC for my main machine because it runs MS Office, it's less expensive than a Mac, and it also runs all those other pieces of software that you need from time to time. When Macs started running both Unix and MS Office I thought they would be worth a try, so last year I had an IMac running Tiger, and now a Macbook running Leopard. Tiger wasn't bad, but the keyboard was very flaky, no sign of the promised Apple quality there - there was terrible key 'bounce', and a quick Google search confirmed that many other users had the same problem. The Macbook doesn't have that problem, but Leopard is not a reliable operating system, any more than Windows is. It crashes regularly. Google again confirms that this is a common problem. So where does that leave us? The Macs are more expensive than all the other PCs, not particularly more reliable, but at least they run Unix (although Apple have decided to go against the standards in various areas so getting open-source software to run can be very hit and miss), and at least they run MS Office (although not MS Access - I guess MS wants to keep a good reason why people who need to do serious desktop work need to keep a Windows PC).
I'm sure there is a market for machines that look well-designed, especially for people who don't really use them to their limits, and I'm sure Apple will continue to find customers. They make a nice looking product. But let's not get carried away. They don't have a monopoly on good engineering, and they don't make a crash-proof computer. If you want crash-proof, Linux is probably by far the best option, as Unix always has been. It's a shame Apple have decided they knew best and changed some of the fundamentals that have always kept Unix ahead of Windows when reliability matters.
I am also an IT bod and recently stared playing with macs, after 10 years of windows usage i am fed up with constantly fixing windows problems both at the pc level and at the server level.
I have to say I like the MAC. Its simple, not bloated with loads of stuff you will never use (vista full of it) and quick to boot and recover from sleep. Lots of intergated tech (bluetooth wireless N etc)
If you have an intel Mac you can run xp/vista out of the box using either a dual boot (boot camp) or Virtual machine (vmware fusion , paralels).
Many tests have reported that the fastes PC that run windows are indeed Intel Macs. My guess is that this is because the cpu is intergrated in to the motherboard (logic board in apple speak) and a good match of componenets and firmware.
I have a Powermac G5 (dual 2.5Ghz) and and old 17" powerbook G4 and they are both running Leopard no problems at all, even some G3's can run leapord. You cant run vista on a PC thats over 5 years old (or even under 1-2).
I am selling the G5 though because being vain I want a new 24" imac, for a computer its a work of art....
Apple should increase their prices so that all the cheap Windoze PC users, stay windoze users. There seems to be a misguided idea that Apple what a huge market for their machines. This is untrue. We Apple users are an elite bunch who like to use the best systems around and not be bogged down trying to be compatible with al-sorts of crap equipment.
I have a 17' MacBook Pro, 2 iMacs, an iPod, AppleTV and an iPhone. I'm more than happy to pay the extra as it keeps it to those who can afford it and know how to use it. I have no problems with any of the kit and it does exactly what I need to do. It just all works together without me having to be come an unpaid Microshaft development and service engineer. I spend my time do work and having fun, not searching for this driver and this file to make my Windoze system work.
Its amazing how many people, take so much time and expend so much energy, complaining about Apple, their products and its users. Get a life and be happy with your lot. I am and I will never go back to Microshaft or its products or be jealous of those who use it.
From one smug Apple user.
Last time I read an indepth review of an intel MAC in PCW Magazine (late 2007)they decided it was no more than £50 more expensive than the same spec Dell AND given the software that comes with the Mac... it actually made it very good value for money.
I think Apple are where they want to be right now. The stock price is merely a reflection of the US downturn.
I was given an iphone for Xmas (lucky me) after deciding not to buy one for myself. What an amazing device - aside from no 3G (and there's none where I live anyway) its the first gadget I've owned that actually does what it claims.
A laptop/computer becomes a personal thing, you keep your contacts, photos and music on it, when the cost doesn't matter, you would prefer a mac, I love my macBook pro, iMac and iPods, it is a personal thing between us.
Does anyone feel that about a PC ?
Apple sell products that become personal (and just work well in all ways) as someone said before "I have fun with my macbook"
leave us alone......
For me it used to be a big debate between both OS, however since the arrival of BootCamp and a Mac's ability to switch effortlessly from Windows to Mac OS, I think the answer is quite simple: get a mac if you can afford it.
Of course you pay for what you get, which on top of brilliantly simple and sturdy design is a computer thought with the end user in mind. Linux, Ubuntu and Unix are all quite nice for the IT crowd, however, for the technologicaly challenged, macs are user friendly, robust and a delight to use.
On the other hand, I detected quite a bit of praise in this article, particularly because Apple's strategy has brought them back to their origins: the computer, and the so called 'halo' effect from it's other products has boosted sales of it's once ailing computers. The superb products such as the iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, Airport, etc, simple reinforce the fact that Apple want to give a complete (and state of the art) experience to their consumers.