Neowin.net

#6 is a good point, and #3 could be dealt with in time if they ever start being popular enough to be in major IT shops (they made the eMac for schools)

edit: edited my post because to article changed (wtf?)

Last edited by Rudy on 13 Nov 2008 - 17:21

#2 and #1 are the best reasons here. Why am I going to buy a $1000 MacBook that is less powerful then my current Dell? I have to spend $1300 in order to get the new MacBook to get something slightly more powerful (only because of the graphics card) then my current Dell..... which I paid $630 for last year

#1 is completely valid due to the image that Apple represents. Someone has to tell us that we need the overpriced hardware. The new nano isn't really innovative and a few friends and I who have the 3rd generation "fatty" nano don't really see any reason to upgrade

One more point. For businesses group policy is a major major sticking point. Being able to use group policy to control the pc's is in valuable. Unless osx server has something like it (also as easy to configure) then it wont get too much business use.

OS X could be bigger then it is they just choose not to so no point stating the obvious about a gated communities ideals

every single mac vs pc argument will be linked to this page from here in.

I believe that if Apple releases OSX to be used on computers that are non-apple then they will get the market share that they deserve. If they don't then I don't think they will be beating Microsoft anytime soon.

I could be wrong, but I don't think being totally mainstream is an Apple goal in terms of Macs. iPhones and iPods on the other hand are.

Reason #4: Maybe they have conceeded that they will not get the elder folks to buy Apple or convert their companies to Apple computers so they are targetting the younger genereation in hopes that down the road these just out of college adults will start their own fortune 500 companies running Apple hardware or running the IT departments and convince their bosses to switch?

Mac OS X Server v10.5.4 (Unlimited-client license) - $999.00 - What would that cost for Windows? 10-20x more?

#0 There is just no overwhelming need to.

LTD posting thoroughly biased rebuttal in 5...4...3...

#6: Anecdotal evidence is largely worthless but for what it's worth, my "corporate world" was heavily transitioning into Macs. I'm now in research and Windows systems are a rarity.

#5: You can virtualize Windows (and thereby Windows software) on a Mac now. While the argument is not totally moot, this is no longer a deal-breaker for people who are even slightly interested in Macs.

#4: Maybe people care about this, but I sort of don't think so. Many people I know are switching over to Macs because they feel that it "just works" and that the upkeep is less (no need to worry about viruses, and so on). For now, they're right, but we'll see what happens when Apple's security is tested.

#3: The closed nature of Apple systems bothers me, but when is the last time that your average consumer has opened their computer? There's a good chance that the answer is "never." This is most certainly not a deal-breaker for all but tech enthusiasts.

#2: This is potentially an issue. At my university, at least, Apple computers that were a revision or two behind were still sold - and at a greatly discounted price. Those were some very appealing deals, and they were snapped up rather quickly. While Apple stores may not offer old stock with a discount, I'd be surprised if it's only university bookstores that do.

#1: Most people don't care about this.

Regardless, I don't think that Apple really cares about becoming mainstream. People want something flashy and that works (and works well), areas where Mac OS X has traditionally been strong. I'm a seasoned Windows user (since the 3.1 days) who had a Macbook Pro bestowed upon him a little over a year ago, and I've kept using it ever since (admittedly, the first thing I did was to virtualize Windows XP...) I don't consider myself to be an Apple fanboy, but rather someone who has experience across the Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux platforms.

Part of the migration to Macs may have to do with Vista. I tested Windows Vista, figuring that it couldn't be anywhere near as bad as people were making it out to be, and it actually was that bad. I personally know people who have switched from Windows to Mac simply because Vista suddenly introduced a load of complications into their life. The Vista user interface is nice (reminds me of KDE and a toned-down version of Compiz Fusion), but the poor performance compared to XP and Mac OS X is frustrating to many people - particularly those who don't know and don't care for the underlying reasons behind the performance issues. It sounds like Microsoft has addressed a number of those issues with Windows Seven, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I don't anticipate that many Mac converts will switch back - they may just virtualize and/or use Windows Seven with Bootcamp if they really like it.

nuff said

all those statements are rubbish lol, funny as!

Reason #6: ? Axel Springer just dumped 10 000 PCs for Macs because they're "easier to use," "more elegant," and "cheaper to buy and easier to maintain." All corporations have to do to switch is wait until they need to upgrade, then they can upgrade to OS X.

Tying into #5: Entire campuses are switching to Macs, and even at universities that haven't switched the students are still buying Macs in record numbers. When those kids start taking over the jobs of the old people, they'll be bringing their Macs with them.

#4: When you combine an Intel Mac with Boot Camp, virtualization, or wine, you can run all that software without a problem. As for games, a lot of good games are also released on consoles, and even then there's the Boot Camp option.

Reason #3: There's some people who like to upgrade their computer at every possible chance to be able to use the bleeding edge of technology, but that's really a niche market that Apple doesn't really have to address. For a reasonable percentage of the market people don't need to upgrade their computer.

Reason #2: The Apple tax is more of a myth than anything. When you pit a Mac against a PC identical (and not just similar) the Mac usually ends up cheaper. But even if the PC turns out cheaper, you have to remember that Apple doesn't just throw a bunch of parts in a box and ship it out. Carving out laptops from blocks of aluminium is a little more expensive than pouring some plastic into a mold.

Also, Apple holds a higher standard of what an 'acceptable' computer is. Steve Jobs said it himself: "We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them."

Reason #1: Apple's the only company with Steve Jobs, and the rest of them seem to be doing fine, so I don't think Steve Jobs is a requirement for having a good company. All they need is a someone good to do the job.

Besides all this, does it really matter to Apple? They've got more cash than Microsoft and they're almost to the point where they're making as much money every quarter, with products that people actually like.

1 main reason:
I can run Windows 3.11 program in Vista; and some dos programs to a certain extent. However, with OSX, I can barely run anything not meant for OSX. Especially considering 3 architecture changes that occurred.

I think the title is correct. Apple will never be mainstream i.e more then 33%. But not for all the reason above.

It is simply because apple doesn't want to. Apple's current market share may be closing to 9% in the States. But it is still less then 5% in Worldwide market.

If Apple ever do get to 33% with the same margin they will be larger then Microsoft.

#3 Is not a valid point... you cannot talk about OSX as you talk about windows...
With apple you buy a device that works with OSX preinstalled... same as when you buy Nokia phone with symbian preinstalled... it a device and also symbian cannot be installed on SonyEricsson for example.
That is just in windows world where you buy hardware and software separate but with apple you get a complete package that you just plug and go.

In my opinion there are two types of computer users. Users who just want to do what they are trying to get done and move on to something else. They really don't care how its done. They just want to be done. Macs are the best choice for such users.

On the other hand some users like to explore things go a little further than just the job at hand and have a personal unique touch to what they want to accomplish. PC's are best suited for such users.

I want to tryout OSX but I am not interested in purchasing hardware from apple. I would like to have the freedom to upgrade and customize. If OSX was an open OS apple would have had a curious customer in me. But its not so and hence they lost me as a customer. I am the exploring type and obviously a PC user.

#6 in my opinion is not valid anymore because virtualization has made it easier for people to switch to macs. I have seen organizations like Cisco allowing their employees to adopt macs for their use and using Windows in a virtual machine to connect to the corporate network. Granted the company is part of the technology industry but it can be seen in other organizations as well.

BTW, the ON/OFF switch on the mail server settings tab, gold!

Some well argued points.

To be honest I'm happy for OSX to not go mainstream. As long as it continues to be popular and continues to gain ground against Windows, I'm happy.

I switched to a Mac a while ago and whilst I'm ****ed off DAILY that I couldn't actually buy a Mac that suited my requirements without having to buy a Mac Pro (when a beige box PC could have been bought for 1/4 the price that did all I needed - I had to settle on an iMac) I still think it's a wonderful piece of kit and that OSX is absolutely brilliant. OSX was a natural choice for me anyway.. I've always loved Linux but always hated the 'unfinished' look and the amount of effort required to make it work well on my hardware. So to have a product which brings in a UNIX core (I have shell access! with ssh! and nano! you have an exceptionally pretty and slick UI built right on top.

I do often mull over going back to a Wintel PC but now I'm more determined than ever to stick it out. I might even go up to a Mac Pro so I can finally have what I consider to be one of the ultimate desktop PC's. I know I won't need to upgrade again for some time after that..

OSX is not meant for the mainstream anyways. Thats how Apple has been doing things. Gamers and technology enthusiasts will prefer win/nix.

I guess the points being made here is if you're a "general user" you don't want choice. "General users" just want binary options with computers and nothing more. I guess "general users" like being stuck in a shell.

Apple the way they are going are sponging people over this for all they can get. They're just becoming isolatiionists more and more not only on software but hardware too. Cinema displays pretty cool monitors despite the steep price so what do they do with latest revision, give it only mini-dvi and DisplayPort input basically severing any ability to use it on non apple hardware with simplicity. I mean they are fully capable of adding dvi/vga/hdmi but no they wish to back off into seclusion. Their choice not to open up.

From my point of view though i'd definitely support OS X if it wasn't platform dependant or their hardware was flexible with options and pricing. But we can all dream.

And for this, we can all be glad. Many of the points are invalid, and that's been said here. But fact is, if OS X got over 30%, there would be little to no point in using it. There would be viruses, there would be crapware, and it would essentially be Windows on a more proprietary platform.

And I don't think the point about Mac software is true at all. The free and paid software I have on my Mac does the same or more than what I could find for Windows, plus it's just of generally higher quality imo.

Price. Price is relative, and Macs aren't exactly expensive these days when I compare how much my Intel P2 266MHz cost ten years ago. And you get something in return, hardware quality and polished software, which in turn inspires third party software and hardware makers to follow suite. We have two XP pc's and two Vista pc's at work that is just a dung-heap. First the northbridge fan started making a loud noise before it completely failed. I had to buy a huge passive heatsinks for them. Then the PC won't cold boot until the reset button is pressed also.

On one of the Vista PCs tons of Windows Update hotfixes failed and I had to run sfc. The other PC Internet Explorer crashes instantly it is launched. I have tried reset it in the control panel options, but after a reboot it's back. Windows is a complete mess when it come to system and programs settings, they can be all over the place, in the registry, deeply inside the AppData folder and even right in the My Documents folder. Amazing. In Linux everything is stored right in your Home folder, and app settings in a .app folder quick to find if you should have to delete or edit it.

Spot the Mac owners trying to justify their purchases by using buzzwords like "it just works" and "the apple experience" regurgitating it straight from the arse of Steve Jobs like hes the second coming.

Thesedays you can get a lot more for your money than you can with a Mac thats a fact, this article has it spot on, until the prices come down and apple stop trying to be trendy and marketing it towards yuppies who want form over function Apple will never go mainstream.

Steve Jobs is one of the major put-offs for me anyway, I don't really like the way he sees the need to whine

about Microsoft, the huge competitor to try and boost popularity. I call it the David Cameron effect.

I don't think any of those reasons are insurmountable. I see more macs in business' now than I ever have.

#4 and #2 somewhat contradict one another?

I'm here, I'm here.

Really, these issues/concerns have been brought up time and time again. Since the 80's. They're just not worth revisiting in the same form as usual.

All I know is this:

1) I don't want to build a custom system. It was a huge time sink when I used to do it. It got me in the habit of constantly upgrading the videocard, etc., just to play the latest games, which ended up boring me to death anyway. Eventually upgrading regularly became and end unto itself, pointless. It's no longer a hobby of mine. I'm not a concerned about sheer hardware specs as used to be. I can easily go for a quad-core, high-end system, I suppose. But what I get with current-gen Macs is more than enough for me. For me it's all about the OS. And I've never experienced any sluggishness with OS X.

2) I'm not really a big gamer. Once in a blue moon I'll get a game, play through and that's it. I play ONE online MMO consistently. EVE Online. I can run either the OS X or Windows client (Bootcamp.) I'm the type that still likes some of the old school titles, like Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1 and 2, etc. But games in general don't hold a lot of interest for me. EVE Online I really enjoy, but that's it. Games used to interest me plenty, but that was quite a while ago. When it comes to actual "gamers", or "gaming enthusiasts", I'm not one of them.

3) I enjoy OS X's interface. For me, it feels like night/day compared to Windows. I enjoy working on my Mac, it never feels like a chore. It's easy to use and lets me get things done quickly and efficiently. It's such a comfortable, refreshing OS environment. And it's simple.

4) Easy to maintain. In fact, there's no maintenance involved. Never experienced an issue. Ever. Had only one crash due to a Safari-related bug over two years ago. it was minor, really. That's it. No slowdowns. The OS maintains itself (Unix feature.) No need for any 3rd party software to combat viruses/spyware.

I guess if OS X won't go mainstream after all, then we'll never really have any viruses . . . good news. Since apparently it's all based on popularity of the OS. Over seven years and counting.

5) Integration of all products/software. If it's a closed system that offers me a whole family of products that were designed to work together, maintain the look/feel/OS design across products, then I want in! I've experienced nothing but comfort and stability in this situation. When I have effective, easy to use, good-looking tools to work with, I couldn't care any less about "choice." I've seen the choices out there, and really, the tools Apple gives me are among the best I can get in the entire industry (my opinion.) Seems that Apple knows what I need and want even before I know I need and want it. Fair enough. The relationship has worked so far.

So the above details most of the things I like about using Apple products on a daily basis. And I like them enough to stay. My choices are personal, really.

And regarding my choices, it seems there are a lot of others like me.

Cheers.

Last edited by LTD on 13 Nov 2008 - 12:40

OSX is mainstream. I work with multiple companies who made the transition. Most of my family and friends now have a Mac and those that dont really would like to buy one.

If mainstream means massive market share then obviously only Windows is mainstream. But which windows, Vista certainly isnt. Lots of companies still run 98, that doesnt make 98 mainstream, it makes the people running it stupid.

Reason 6: Lots of schools and unis use macs, the students certainly do. Companies do, home users do. This isnt 3 years ago.

Reason 5: OSX has software that fulfills each different set of requirements. There many not be as much competition between different apps doing the same thing, but the apps that do, work well and are fully supported.

Reason 4: Apple has respect, it may be cool to the kids with their iPods etc... But the MacBook Pros do have a place with business people, look at the recent trial with IBM. People know the brand, know the products and have come into contact with them.

Reason 3: Companies DO like closed platforms. I want to order 10 of those... Thats how Dell makes its money. Big companies dont build their own systems. They buy off the shelf systems in bulk and negotiate discounts.

Reason 2: Given that there isnt a OSX license as its built into the computer, the comparable prices are not much different between systems from Dell or Apple. Apple just dont make budget systems.

Reason 1: The Steve Jobs affect is overblown. There is an army of people working for Apple that all contribute to the success of the products. Ive designs the systems, engineers figure out how to make things work and obviously Jobs has input. Without Jobs, you still have the engineers and Ive. Without Ive you can still hire designers. What Jobs did do was to focus the company back when they were in trouble. That focus is now part of the company, it would take somebody really stupid to change the focus away from what is successful.

I thought the reason for #6 is the way Microsoft has designed Windows for businesses... think Active Directory, Group Policy, application deployment across the network, etc.

Macs OS are no better than PC's OS. Its just personal preference. Biggest turnoff for going Mac is that you buy an expensive piece of vapourware. Thats why their business model is flawed for the computer side of things anyway. Thier market share reflects this. Apples biggest triumph is the ipod and iphone, thats where Apple really shines.

Last edited by fires on 13 Nov 2008 - 13:57

It's a "Squidward" OS for the petulant and needy.

What I find funny is that the Mac TV ads goes after the PC and only talks about bashing Windows. Umm, didnt Apple used to have something called the PowerPC? I think the ads would be more accurate if it was "I am Windows" and "I am OSX" Macs are PCs as PC stands for Personal Computer.

I use Windows and always will. I got a much wider variety of software to install and hardware to use. If I want to upgrade my memory in my PC, I pay 3 times less than I would a Mac. I build a new PCs once every 3 years or so and it doesnt take me long to setup and configure at all. Heck, the longest part is picking out what I want to put in the machine. But this is also the fun part...

Last edited by techbeck on 13 Nov 2008 - 14:36

My opinion about Apple and their products:
+ Nice design / Compact
+ OSx
+ Their image and marketing

- Overpriced
- Not as many application as for example Windows
- Not many games available
- Can't put your own hardware configuration together with OSx on it
- Their image and marketing

"While it's unfortunate that Microsoft commands so much power but the latest versions of Microsoft Office always come out on Windows before OSX."
Brad, either get rid of "while" or get rid of "but." You don't need both in that sentence. Personally, I'd axe the "but." Otherwise, you get an A+ for grammar and formatting.

All good reasons. My personal favorite is the customization issue: While it is technically possible build a custom mac box, good luck finding a retailer that sells parts for a Mac. Not only that, but you can only buy mac parts made by Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple with Apple on Apple with Apple on a side of Apple, Apple wity Spam, Spam, Apple, Apple, And Spam.... oh, and direct from Apple. It's a world of choice! (But I don't like spam!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

I don't understand this article. Question no. 1 must be "Does Apple want OS X to go mainstream?":
- No: Then why write this article at all?
- Yes: Reason #2, #3, #5, #6 can be easily solved by making it an open platform.
- Yes: Reason #4. I think the adds just try to say that smart people chose Mac. That can easily target everybody.
- Yes: Reason #1. I agree with you. Steve Jobs is the coolest guy on the planet. But if the new fantastic system from some other cool guy takes over after Jobs... fine with me

All except for the Steve Jobs one, I agree with.

Yep and there will never be a black president. ..ah yes, I forgot times DO change. What's been the norm for generations won't last forever. In the world of today looking to the past won't predict the future. Maybe a few decades ago but things are different now. In the words of the Joker, we've changed things, there's no going back now.

Windows 7 will pwn any Mac ass anyway.

Flamebait on the frontpage? Oh wait

The only 2 real reasons why it will NEVER go mainstream is that you need an apple computer to use it and that few game developpers use opengl. If you could buy OSX and install it on a PC and if game developpers could easily port their games to OSX it would be possible for OSX to get some momentum with the general public.

Corporate is not mainstream even if this is where the money is. Of course corporate will never ever go to OSX or Linux. Corporate is even affraid to switch to OpenOffice even if for 99% of them OpenOffice would DO the job and for free. In fact for some of them eventually switching from Office 2003 to OpenOffice 3 would even make some sense as general users can be lost with the new UI of Office 2007.

Last edited by LaP on 13 Nov 2008 - 17:01

It already has, depending on which corporation you work for. Some are very OS X heavy. This has to do with market penetration, not some magic obstacle in corporations in general. OS X already does Windows networking, Snow Leopard will support Exchange 2007, etc.

Short sighted conclusion. What if the company will see a better future, OS X suiting their company better for whatever reason, after having switched? Of course companies don't switch without a reason. They don't do that with e.g. Vista either. They didn't with XP, etc.

As for Reason #5, the situation is constantly improving, not going the other direction. I also see no reason it'll magically stop improving.

Reason #4 is weak because mom and dad will not only see that ad, but also a computer that may seem easier to use than a Windows box. The world is not black and white. Even parents see beyond a silly commercial, just like a Windows user see beyond a Windows commercial. Sure, the ad may not exactly win these people over, but I'd say it's far fetched and most importantly unsupported by real-world examples to say they're scared away.

Reason #3, this is a complex issue, as it has major advantages too with optimized performance and lack of driver issues / stability problems. This is the main source of BSOD's on Windows, and hence the reason for much of the bad press MS is getting, surely risking to scare users away, perhaps causing some Mac switches too.

Reason #2, true, and in contrast to aggressive OEM price slashing by MS. The latest MacBook (cheapest Oct 2008 edition) is at least improving this situation.

Reason #1, you are no longer talking about market penetration issues, but speculation on if the next CEO will be able to lead Apple. Well, who knows? Will the successor to Ballmer cause a crapload of issues for MS? Who knows? It's worthless to speculate in. Gates was a very strong identity for MS. They seem to be doing ok despite him stepping down.

OSX lacks on Task Manager (Dork is fancy yet useless), uninstall and other "irrelevant" features.

Not supporting this but I am surprised- they neglected another key impact.

Advertising budget- Microsoft advertises for business. I personally have not seen a single add for Apple and corporate clients. Not to mention Please include a link if I am wrong-- would love to see it.

Second-- Does Apple even offer a server infrastructure? I don't mean media server. would really love to know.

And yes I have owned them in the past- But please tell me with links if the do would be very interested.

You see back in school we had those cool kids, who did their thing, never listened to anyone, follow all the latest trends.....looked down upon the hard working people and thought they were just wasting their time. So 10 years down the line, you meet them again, they're not so cool anymore, they're working at the local burger joint or they might have just inherited their daddy's business. Cool people use apple. Real people use Microsoft Windows.

I mean, seriously for how long will they keep up this image? They release these horribly stupid ads, defacing Microsoft. I really don't see any future for a company who releases their products on the sole aspect of being "cooler" than their competitor's. Grow up, its been too long. At the end of the day, you want the hard working guy on your side, not the cool kid with spikes. Flame me!

How poorly is this article written? Don't people proof read?

Talk non-flameproof article:p

It has a bad undertone of "I (insert heart here) Microsoft".

And, hey, i like both Apple/OSX and MS/Windows (Alright, I more of a Windows guy,but I don't hate Macs. Like the OS, hate the prices :p)

But this article is written seems to be written by a fanboy/hater :p

As for #6: If you where to go back to the late 80's and early 90's…What did you see…..Apple…Some would say they owned more than 33 percent of the market compared to IBM and other small competitors. Apple dropped the ball, Gates f'ed Apple over a few times and the market shifted to what was in demand (as they always do), Windows. UNIX was put on the back burner, along with Apple because of what we I.T. Pro's call the new "Delivery Channel". Corporations invest in a technology that allows them to deliver their product to the customer easily and in mass portions. It has little to do with preference in platform. If the whole world start to swing down the Ubuntu Linux route, then guess what, the software development companies would be writing their apps for Linux as we see today. How many mainstream apps did you see for Linux back in the 90's as we see today?? You can get a Linux version of many mainstream apps that you couldn't get 10 years ago.…as with the iPhone, if you were writing mobile apps for CE/WM or Palm, then you got new job now writing that same app for iPhone…..
I believe it is Apple's intention to not take on the strong hold Microsoft has, along with Linux with the enterprise technology arena. Apple doesn't have enough money to do that. What they can do is steal some of Microsoft's hold on the home user…..and based on actual numbers of 15 percent that can be found on Wall Street, it would seem its working very well….I look around my office and see a 3 percent rise in the amount of Mac's sitting on some people's desk (yes, they got exceptions from their leaders)….and…I also see a 25 percent reduction in the level of Windows based servers being deployed in places like Intel, American Express, JP Morgan, On Semi Conductor, IBM, and a few others. I see corporations moving to Linux for Enterprise solutions. I see AIX, Solaris and HPUX being clearly abandoned by I.T. as a group. I hear a common buzz phrase being used more frequently….Platform Simplicity….no more having 5 or more OS's in the datacenter and no more having 3 or more client OS's….and No, Windows is not winning by default mostly due to virtualization. Today's term is…..only deploy Windows when you have to.
I think Apple has a great potential to get a stronger place in corporate America by two ways….First, get a larger control on the client OS….and second….as corporate America get Windows out of the datacenter (or reduces Window's presence) you will see OSX being more capable in a enterprise environment. One of the big reasons OSX doesn't pay nice in Enterprise I.T. is the continued lockdown of Windows network services such as Active Directory, IIS/.Net and so on….Look how long it took Windows to add "Unix Services" in R2 and it still doesn't work well with UNIX/Linux….and very little support for OSX….Simply put…Window's un-willingness to play friendly with other OS's is going to get Windows kicked out of the DC. If that happens, then you will see an up-rise of OSX and other non-Windows OS's get more share because they will be functional. When the end-user (AKA: Customer) see's a more stable, faster, sleek looking and easier to use computer hit the market that works with the companies that provide the EU with their products…then ask yourself….What delivery channel will corporations use to deliver the product? And it may not be OSX, could be something else…who knows…but it has happened before and it can happen again. I think its way to early to write off OSX's ability to become mainstream…..A lot of these same people said the same thing about Linux 10 years ago….ooooopppps……and no, Linux is not mainstream for the end user, but surely you could say it is for the DC.

If we can't convert our companies to OSX then we stand little chance in convincing institutions of higher education to do the same. The idea is based on a waterfall principle that we need a major change on one front to affect the rest. The problem is that the world revolves around money and it costs money to replace current infrastructures with OSX. While corporations are not the only user of computers they have a massive trickle down effect. The average person can pick up and use a Windows computer without a problem no matter what version they use; it's a 'comfortable' operating system. The same can not be said about OSX, while it may be easy to use, not nearly as many people have used OSX as compared to Windows. If our corporations use Windows our schools will teach upon it, how many people have taken a Windows based course before?

For the above statement I would say……I believe the new term you are looking for is ‘"Agile Methodology"…Waterfall Methodology is old school….The waterfall approach consist of getting your requirements up front, running to the basement for 6 months with no further communication and then coming back to the customer with what you believe they wanted….What the waterfall approach missed was….things can change within that 6 months of no contact. While Microsoft was using waterfall (Example: Vista)…Linux and Apple have been using Agile which means continued communication with the customer throughout the development cycle, so when you get to a "finished" product…..you know its what the customer wanted. Apple is not interested in teach mom and dad and the grandparents how to use a Mac…..why would they….Do you spend 10K to fix the 1980 pickup truck or use the 10K as a down deposit on your new 2009 BMW. The new/young generation is being trained on a Mac and a iPod and a iPhone.


As for #5…………..See my response to #6…….Time baby…its all about time….Have you seen how far Open Office has come…My God man…..Can you tell the difference between Office 2003 and Open Office…other than the price tag….But I do agree…..Apple need to re-think their software prices…..


As for #4…See #6…...Last paragraph…….I am a suit….that advertisement attacks me…I have made a great career using Windows and Windows is my strongest skill set. I am just not naive enough to believe that what was hot yesterday will still be to tomorrow, so I keep my skills diverse…I have two daughters that are the target of that Apple Ad. And you know what…..Thank God for it…thank God that technology is still innovating and creating new, better ways to do things. If Windows can't get it together and come up with something truly new for my kids to use that betters their life and actually works with minimal problems and is simple, yet advance at the same time, then they deserve to be left behind. And from what I can see…Windows looks, feels and acts pretty much the same as it did 12 years ago and I ironically feel like I am installing the same amount of updates as I did when Windows Update was first introduced in Windows 98, but the problems still don't feel like they are going away. I still cant get OSX to connect to LDAP/Active Directory as I can with Linux/UNIX LDAP without some add-on tool or fix and its usually Windows doing something with product that no one else is doing that causes the problem.

Do I sound like am attacking Windows, yeah, maybe I am…have I made a ton of money using it, supporting it and building my career on it….yes….but………I believe that if you can praise something, then you need to be able to call out its flaws and Windows has plenty of them and no real desire to address them. So I root for the underdog who seems to want victory more than the rich jackass who just expects it.

As for #3……..A comment like this comes from a true geek such as myself…..We geeks want an advance GUI button or option GUI button in every part of our favorite applications. We want to pop open our computer cases to stare in awe of the shiny blue or red lights we custom installed in a plastic clear case sides. We want to overclock that CPU so we can run it beyond what Intel and AMD spent millions of dollars determining what was safe for a long life of service. We want as much ram as we can force into that DIMM slots so we can have bragging rights of RAM we will never really use. And yes, we are men (and women) who just want to say. My **** is bigger than yours.
I will only speak for my family and my work colleagues with kids and lives beyond the semi-conductor and the corporations I support……..They want a computer that boots up in under 60 seconds and is actually usable in that time, so they can QUICKLY check their email and go to a website to buy that something they need and maybe go to their banks website to pay some bills and check their balances (most today do not use a financial program installed locally). They need this so they can get back to their wives who are screaming at them from across the house and the kids they promised to go play ball with or whatever…The young person of today is smart enough to load Windows/Linux in a VM to play his/her video game should it not work in OSX or Linux or maybe (if you want to be a real geek) do a dual boot with boot camp or use Windows Vista that support EFI. But lets be honest……If the lack of a game or business application is the only real problem that OSX has, then I would say its in great shape. Time will fix this problem.

For #2 I will say……..I cant really argue this….yes…its expensive…but to be a geek with too much time on his hands…I will say this…..Price of a loaded PC with Vista could be 1200 bucks…..the cost of Apple best PC is 3000 (WOW!!!!!. My "Net" time is worth $20 per hour. Time spent waiting on Vista to load on a my fully loaded 8GB Ram Quad core PC….3 hours per year over the Mac…time spend installing 30 updates per month and reboot, just to be told to wait longer during boot for the update to apply….6 hour per year……time spent clicking continue and OK to launch my business application or game….1 hour per year….time spent hunting down drivers for Vista for hardware that was released new yesterday….4 hours over a year….money spent purchasing my games and business apps that didn't work on Vista…..1000 bucks…time spent on forums finding answers to Vista problems such as why the Dreamscene on Vista Ultimate x64 edition doesn't work on my multi video card bad-ass PC with "3" 19 inch monitors…4 hours and one bottle of Advil….do the math……get the point…….??????? Microsoft makes billions per year based on the things you don't see or think of…such as time and headaches you suffer with their products.

And final point for this…….Corporations specifically buy Dell and HP product lines that have locked down hardware platforms. This insures driver compatibility and stability and insures the image we deploy to 500 or clients machines works. You will not find any large and successful corporation building custom PC's for deployment in their environment. That would be an F'ing nightmare to support. Hardware and OS lockdown is the only way to insure you have a quality computer with drivers written specifically for the device and an OS that was made solely based on the PC you are running it on. Microsoft is NOT solely to blame for its problems. There are too many devices and too many driver versions for MS to keep track of and hence you have stability problems….

And #1……I don't think its Steve that is solely the reason for Apple's success. I think a simple principle can be applied here. Do 3 or 4 things GREAT and vest all you have into those things….or…..do 200 things "OK"……The Mac Computer products, the iPod, the iPhone and iTunes……Is anyone going to argue that the whole world is dancing to the drums of these 4 products and will anyone name one of Microsoft's 200 products or services that is doing GREAT…….Apple has vested all they are into a small list of products and I think there is great potential for Apple to take more than 33 percent of the market. And with Microsoft "giving" Apple more market share everyday….it may happen sooner than we all think.

Steve Jobs is Bill Gates! The consumer is controlled! Flying toasters are a lie!

They can't bury the truth forever!!

The answer is 52

the fact that people write articles like this means that they are scare that this is becoming mainstream otherwise why would they write something like this if Apple really had no chance.

this for a laugh aswell... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8yrOAjfKM

Last edited by offroadaaron on 14 Nov 2008 - 00:05

I think Apple has a difirent idea of business than Microsoft.

Apple is carring user's hearts where they want to be, a less problematic scenario. Dummy users are getting tired of the need of knowing that much of computers to be at peace with their OS and what they do. MacOS offers just that.

I don't agree with the six points said, but I think that all of them has a point that is worth to think about.

About Apple being a close platform, I must say that windows also has its own way of close platform but is larger, so it doesn't seem to be that closed.

All people that says that a Mac has no problem with windows apps because of virtualization, they're quite right but not everythings runs just fine and we must pay for these virtualization programs, it is not given with the OS as a feature.

Windows XP and Vista also has virtualization programs to make them work with several OS on top of the main system, and MacOS can't work in this virtualized environment because apple has made really sure we can't by putting hardware limitations that only Macs are allowed to have.

I love my PC with Windows Vista. And I only need one reason that is enough for me to keep doing so and being happy with it. One videogame, Crysis.

Though with the Marketing Plan-- Apple should be mainstream--- It is a sound principle.--

Offer Quality that Just works (there is the small percentage of factory defects) -- That way by only authorizing certain hardware (controlling the builds) -- Where as with Microsoft/Linux (granted there are companies that build only with certain parts) you have most users who build and upgrade at a whim or in some cases where they put a box together with parts laying around or found at bargain from many sources. I am truly surprised that OSX is not more Mainstream as they are--- The main stopping point is Price--- You can build not the best system but a good system for under 500$ whereas with Apple the starting Cheapest OS is 599$(you may as well say 600) now if Apple really wanted to go Mainstream-- Offer a Starter one for just less than 500$ and they would cleanup and be more mainstream. That is just my opinion--

In the end aren't operating systems hosting environment you use run your favorite applications? Most IT jobs don't care what you use as long as you can get the job done. I work in a IT shop and I use Windows , developers us Linux , the graphic department uses Windows and Mac and sales uses Windows and we are able to communicate and work together on projects. Since the world is moving to web application soon it won't matter what platform you use.

I see some very excellent points as to why windows is a very very suitable operating system for a wide audience..
I hope many of those criteria can soon be applied to linux as well (aside from the financial aspect...where linux is king). linux should eventually become the best of both worlds...that's its destiny....lol.

On the other hand windows will be perfected if it takes and integrates some of the things that make linux great (again not including money factor). then i wont see a reason as to why it will even have any competition... but it is highly unlikely to happen.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the ability to run Mac OS X is a compelling enough argument to pay a premium for a Mac. For me, I own an iMac and MacBook - personally, I do think that it is worth the money BUT for another person, it may be a difficult argument to make.

The six points made by the article writer are meaningless because the answer to all six is answered by the one question I posed.

Reason 6 is flawed because one can easily link the hardware and operating system upgrade in the one cycle. If you are on a 5 year computer cycle, you can easily do the two at the same time. To argue that there needs to be a 'transition' is flawed. Windows Vista is the best example of how companies are sticking with Windows XP and putting off a Windows upgrade until their next hardware upgrade cycle.

I could go on, but basically the rest is crap. Come on, I can pull better articles out my behind.

Apple is a hardware company - Apple is a hardware company - Apple is a hardware company

OSX wont be a "mainstream" OS simply because its not the only thing Apple is selling right now. Its part of their high margin end-to-end package thats making them good money right now.

Companies switching hardware and software to OSX is one thing and training their staff on how to use OSX and other application will be another.

Ok...this article is great....but i still support both Vista & Mac..but for sure, you cant compare Apple Mac with Windows!!...Windows is far ahead of Mac (in enterprise support, patch support, devices & lot more!!

And this thread is HUGE..and its a thread for both of the people to advocate there opinion..! I say Windows is better than Mac...and dont call Mac is stable, & feels good..Windows 7 too is coming for the "feels good" stuff...and put your mac with several devices..,, it will crash for sure at some point of time..

Wow. How refreshing. A realistic article about OS X. For years I've been reading gushing columns and articles and blog posts about how OS X is going to take over the world. Guess what? Last month, OS X lost market share (.02% acording to net applications [hitslink.marketshare.com]) - I ain't never heard of a runaway success that was losing market share when it already had almost zero market share, but that's what the Mac is in the eyes of the blogosphere. It takes a brave person to stand up in today's environment and tell the truth about this issue, I commend the author. Next you should write an article about linux, the other run-away sucess with < 1% of the market for the last 10 years or so, lol. Vista gets more users a month than linux has total, to put things in perspective.