Six reasons OSX will not go mainstream

Apple has a great consumer OS on its hands. Its sleek, it's easy to use and it will not ever make it to mainstream America. There are 6 reasons why we will never see Apple take more than a third of the market share. For the sake of this article, mainstream will be referred to as greater than 33% of all computers.

Reason #6: The corporate world won't adopt OSX. Look around your office, more than likely you're looking at a Windows based environment. While it's true that not all companies run Windows, it is safe to say that the majority do in some form. Why wont corporations switch? Its simple, companies invest millions of dollars to keep up a Windows based infrastructure. The only thing costlier than maintaining thousands of computers is to replace them all, all with OSX.

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?

Reason #5: Software. Let's take a simple look at the available software titles out there for each platform. Regardless of the topic Windows based programs dwarf the OSX competition with ease. If your looking for a program to do a certain task you will, without a doubt, have more options on Windows PC. If you're a hardcore gamer there is no option but to have a copy of Windows at your disposal if you care to keep up on the most current titles.

If you're into business software the options for OSX are dismal at best. While it's unfortunate that Microsoft commands so much power, the latest versions of Microsoft Office always come out on Windows before OSX. While not a deal breaker for the home user it can be for reason #5.

Reason #4: Apples Image. Apple has built the image that it is modern and un-Microsoft. While this is working out great for Apple in the short term it also limits its user base. Take a look at any OSX vs Vista advertisement. It's always the cool kid making fun of the suit Vista. While this is great for the college student looking to get a computer it doesn't work so well with mom and dad who very well may see themselves as a 'suit' in that picture. Look around your dinner table and more than likely your father or mother is a suit at work. Professionalism is key to many adults and Apple has steered itself away from be the professional option. Good for poor college kids not so good for the hard working suit.

Reason #3: OSX is a closed platform. Want to build a custom computer with OSX; don't even try (legally). Apple has limited the configurations that OSX can be implemented on. This works well for Apple's business model but anyone who wants to construct a custom built computer is not able to use OSX (legally). If you're trying to build the ultimate computer with bleeding edge technology for your need, OSX is not an option. Lock the platform and you lock out consumers.

Reason #2: The Apple Tax. To get a computer running OSX you must buy a computer from Apple. Apple computers have a higher cost than a traditional PC from Dell or HP. Also it has to be mentioned that there is no low-cost option. The cheapest option is the Mac-mini which starts at $599.99. For someone looking to buy a budget PC, Apple is not an option.

Reason #1: Steve Jobs. To become a major competitor you must remain strong for the foreseeable future. Many people don't like to buy into a product that doesn't have a long life ahead of it. Regardless of how well OSX runs, how cool it looks, it can all be attributed back to Steve Jobs; he is the master of sales and marketing. Much of Apple's recent success can be attributed to his skills. Steve Jobs will not live nor want to work forever. When Steve passes the buck to the next person in line will his horde of followers accept this?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Movie to be based off of the 'I Love You' virus.

Next Story

Panasonic starts it's own recycling program

179 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

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.

to be fair with linux, you have to look at the linux server market share; desktop linux is light years away from windows and os x in terms of standarization (key of third party software development).

and again, having lived the birth, raise, fall and again raise of the macintosh, it looks like apple keeps insisting again and again on the same errors, specially now that OS X could raise the definitive desktop standard that linux lacks.

nr. 1: release os x to the market, let it run on whatever intel/amd hardware people whish. Build exclusive design computers to those who ask for it.

nr. 2: no need to fight windows; fund wine, partner with software developers to help them certify their products to run with wine.

nr. 3: make os x virtualization-friendly; bussiness are fastly moving to the virtual world for cost reasons; leaving microsoft alone in this field is in my opion, simply ridiculous

nr. 4: os x is linux like it or not. Apple is in debth with the community ;-)

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..

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.

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.

m!ke said,
Apple is a hardware company - Apple is a hardware company - Apple is a hardware company

No,no,no.

You have misunderstood. Apple is selling an OS, with the biggest hardware dongle ever. It's so complicated that the dongle comes in different versions;)

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.

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.


realmccoy said,
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.

agreed, webapps and virtualization is happening more and more these days.

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--

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.

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

They can't bury the truth forever!!

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.

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

bdsams said,
the article was written on a mac

Exactly! The fanboy was trying out the Mac, found out things he hates and made his own view BUT was too lazy to switch to a Windows and posted the article from the same Mac instead.

Btw, I like Windows more, but when it comes to fanboyism, I hate both parts.

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!

sibot said,
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!

What are you talking about??

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.

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_Monitor

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/macnifying-os...tivity-monitor/

Dock is useless as opposed to what? The Taskbar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacks_(software)

Dock + Stacks is pretty compelling.

You uninstall by simply dragging the app into the Trash. Windows tended (at least in XP) to leave behind the main app folder and associated prefs files. Sometimes the same thing happens in OS X. But there are numerous freeware apps that automatically move every associated file into the Trash. I don't doubt that the same exists for Windows.

LTD said,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_Monitor

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/macnifying-os...tivity-monitor/

Dock is useless as opposed to what? The Taskbar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacks_(software)

Dock + Stacks is pretty compelling.

You uninstall by simply dragging the app into the Trash. Windows tended (at least in XP) to leave behind the main app folder and associated prefs files. Sometimes the same thing happens in OS X. But there are numerous freeware apps that automatically move every associated file into the Trash. I don't doubt that the same exists for Windows.

There also commandline tools aswell to quit applications, like top or kill or killall or ps to look at running applications and serivces. Task manager is th least of the worries here.

LTD said,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_Monitor

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/macnifying-os...tivity-monitor/

Dock is useless as opposed to what? The Taskbar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacks_(software)

Dock + Stacks is pretty compelling.

You uninstall by simply dragging the app into the Trash. Windows tended (at least in XP) to leave behind the main app folder and associated prefs files. Sometimes the same thing happens in OS X. But there are numerous freeware apps that automatically move every associated file into the Trash. I don't doubt that the same exists for Windows.

tended to leave ???

Windows ALWAYS leave files behind when you un-install apps. Look at the common files folder and application data folders. If like me you install and un-install software often you'll have A LOT of useless files there.

Also Windows Task manager is definately not the best task manager around. Most of the times (read almost always) when a full screen app fail you can't see Windows Task Manager under the crashed full screen app. In fact the best thing about the Logitech G15 keyboard is that you can have a Task Manager on the LCD screen of the kayboard so when a full screen game crash and you can't see Windows Task Manager under it you can kill the game's process using the G15 LCD screen. Before buying this keyboard each time WoW crashed i needed to restart Windows cause the only thing i was able to see was a black screen or a fixed single frame of the game. And WoW tend to crash often when you install a lot of addons which you need to do if you tank raid even if it's only once or twice a month like me.

Reason #6: The corporate world won't adopt OSX. Look around your office, more than likely you're looking at a Windows based environment.

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.
Why wont corporations switch? Its simple, companies invest millions of dollars to keep up a Windows based infrastructure. The only thing costlier than maintaining thousands of computers is to replace them all, all with OSX.

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.

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.

You can't blame Apple because Microsoft forces game developers into its proprietary OpenGL ;)

The issues wit compatibility aren't Apple's fault, just their problem. The compatibility, or lack thereof, is Microsoft's fault, but who can blame them. Nothing wrong with DirectX, although there's nothing stopping game developers from using OpenGL on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

simon360 said,
You can't blame Apple because Microsoft forces game developers into its proprietary OpenGL ;)

The issues wit compatibility aren't Apple's fault, just their problem. The compatibility, or lack thereof, is Microsoft's fault, but who can blame them. Nothing wrong with DirectX, although there's nothing stopping game developers from using OpenGL on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

correction it is there proprietary DirectX not openGL

sibot said,
Definitely, Windows 7 is bound to blow the hats off Mac.

Wait until release.

Apple will also have a release.

lol.

LTD said,
Wait until release.

Apple will also have a release.

lol.


yeah that superbar is crazy..... ROFL NOT!, talk about a slow multitasking bar.... you have to hover over the app to see what it is, that = time and = less efficiency.

Good luck with Vista 7 and super bar.

offroadaaron said,
yeah that superbar is crazy..... ROFL NOT!, talk about a slow multitasking bar.... you have to hover over the app to see what it is, that = time and = less efficiency.

Good luck with Vista 7 and super bar.

Don't knock it until you tried it. As in trying it in its final form. You're criticizing pre-beta code... lol.

I for one like the 'switch without switching windows' concept. Expose's useful as long as there aren't too many windows open. Aero Peek on the other hand guarantees the window 'preview' will show up in 1:1 clarity even if there's a dozen apps running in the background.

Anyways, next year will be interesting to watch. Both OSes are getting 'polished', not some night-and-day revamp.

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.

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

bdsams said,
if Apple didnt want to go mainstream then why did they open retail shops and now sell Mac's in other retail shops?

if you sold products online and people started buying heaps, wouldn't that be the next step for your business. Retail stores do not = mainstream.

If it was an open platform, you may solve issues but you also remove the profitability from Apple. They profit based on the fact that it is a closed platform.
Of course Apple want to go mainstream. They are a business and businesses like money. They have advertisements targeting 'PC' users (ironic, they use PCs now). Their ads target average consumers.

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

jporter said,
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

+ Same feature apps just not as many to filter out.
+ Businesses don't play games usually.
+ Can upgrade to any hardware, businesses usually want pre-build machines anyways.
+ Nothing wrong with the marketing.

1. Not same feature apps.
2. Businesses are not all that make up marketshare. In fact, Apple doesn't even target them.
3. Can't upgrade easily. Especially the cases Apple uses.
4. The marketing is very misleading. Though if you were to hire a Marketing company you'd hire the one Apple has as it is very successful in converting people.

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...

Sorry, but you're misinformed. The RAM on your Windows PC is the exact same as can be used in a Mac. I've swapped RAM between a G3 and a Pentium III, and now that it's all Intel there's even less possible points of conflict. Apple massively jacks up their price, and a number of companies saw an opportuntiy and also offer "Apple-compatible" memory at a boosted price, but it's all a gimmick. Shame on them for taking advantage of people who don't know any better. Regardless, changing your RAM doesn't even void the warranty on your computer - compare that to many PCs where opening the case at all voids your warranty.

As for software, software makers can and do change platforms. Worst case scenario, you can virtualize Windows on a Mac now, so you don't need to leave your Windows programs behind if you ever do want to switch.

But look, if Windows works for you, then keep using it. I do not mean to come off as an Apple evangelist. What annoys me is when anyone says "I will always use this product, no matter what" - this isn't a committed relationship. Put your dollars toward what serves you best. You'll be better-served, and ideally it'll also keep the companies honest and hard-working so that you'll stick with them not because you're loyal, but because they really are the better choice for you.

Ledgem said,
Sorry, but you're misinformed. The RAM on your Windows PC is the exact same as can be used in a Mac. I've swapped RAM between a G3 and a Pentium III, and now that it's all Intel there's even less possible points of conflict. Apple massively jacks up their price, and a number of companies saw an opportuntiy and also offer "Apple-compatible" memory at a boosted price, but it's all a gimmick. Shame on them for taking advantage of people who don't know any better. Regardless, changing your RAM doesn't even void the warranty on your computer - compare that to many PCs where opening the case at all voids your warranty.

As for software, software makers can and do change platforms. Worst case scenario, you can virtualize Windows on a Mac now, so you don't need to leave your Windows programs behind if you ever do want to switch.

But look, if Windows works for you, then keep using it. I do not mean to come off as an Apple evangelist. What annoys me is when anyone says "I will always use this product, no matter what" - this isn't a committed relationship. Put your dollars toward what serves you best. You'll be better-served, and ideally it'll also keep the companies honest and hard-working so that you'll stick with them not because you're loyal, but because they really are the better choice for you.

You have no clue what your talking about.... Yes more software, more crap to filter out and more of the same program over and over and over again, Mac usually have the same apps (but without having 50 to filter out) which are easier to use and do everything needed. As for hardware, its exactly the same you can upgrade RAM and HDD easily just like any PC.

offroadaaron said,
You have no clue what your talking about....

Ah yes, there it is - that elitest attitude that makes people hate Mac users. Thanks for talking down to me from the very first sentence of your post so that I knew what to expect.

What you don't seem to understand is that people don't use their computers for the operating system - are you shocked? - they use it for the programs. It doesn't matter if Macs have a single equivalent program that you think is easier to use. What matters to someone considering switching is whether they can bring their data with them (to curb any smart-alec responses, that means being able to access and work with it, not just copy over data files) and whether they'll lose a lot of productivity during that transition period when they're learning all of the new things.

If you know Windows well, you can virtualize it, and that means you can learn the OS X side at your own pace. It doesn't matter which is better - OS X could be 10000x times better than Windows, but someone who is used to Windows and has never used Mac OS X will not be able to get a single thing done on it until they're used to it and have found equivalent programs. During that transition state, the Mac OS X computer is completely worthless to the person and they're losing productivity.

That aside, I stick to what I said. Use what works best for you. I used Windows a bit over a year ago, I use a Mac today, and if Windows or Linux seems better for my needs tomorrow then you know what I'll be using. It seems obvious to me, but some people like to play their technology companies as though they're sport teams.

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.

fires said,
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.

Apple's 38% growth in computer sales far outpaced the rest of the industry in 2008, as it did in 2007., and Apple was able to achieve significant market share gains throughout the year. On October 16th, Apple was reported as the #3 computer maker with 9.5% market share in the U.S. according to data released by Gartner Research. In 2002, Apple commanded only 3.48% U.S. market share.

All told, Apple sold 9.715 million Macs throughout 2008, up from 7.051 million Macs in 2007. That represents US$14.27 billion in 2008 compared to $10.31 billion in 2007.

It's worth pointing out that Mac sales alone -- of more than $14 billion in 2008 -- were greater than the entirety of Apple's revenue for all of its product lines.

LTD said,
Apple's 38% growth in computer sales far outpaced the rest of the industry in 2008, as it did in 2007., and Apple was able to achieve significant market share gains throughout the year. On October 16th, Apple was reported as the #3 computer maker with 9.5% market share in the U.S. according to data released by Gartner Research. In 2002, Apple commanded only 3.48% U.S. market share.

All told, Apple sold 9.715 million Macs throughout 2008, up from 7.051 million Macs in 2007. That represents US$14.27 billion in 2008 compared to $10.31 billion in 2007.

It's worth pointing out that Mac sales alone -- of more than $14 billion in 2008 -- were greater than the entirety of Apple's revenue for all of its product lines.


Here in my country, people say "Its easy to grow when you're little". 38% growth on Apple is completely different of 38% growth applied to any major computer seller. And revenue from Mac's is bigger than from iPod's because each Mac costs more than each iPod. Therefore, you need less computers to produce more money. For example, you need to sell about 9 iPod nanos to produce the same money as one Macbook 2.0ghz 13" would produce (values estimated). That also means you only need to sell 1/9 of the macbooks to receive the same money as you would receive with the iPods. If the sales for iPods and Macbooks were equal, the revenue from Macbooks should be at least 6-9 times bigger than the iPods revenue. And it isn't. So, if Macbook's revenue is bigger than all the other product lines, that's fine, but that doesn't mean they're selling more Macs than iPods. You didnt write that, but overall your comment was transmitting that idea.

Ricmacas said,
Here in my country, people say "Its easy to grow when you're little". 38% growth on Apple is completely different of 38% growth applied to any major computer seller.

Indeed, and Gartner is doing a very poor job of reporting that the overwhelming majority of Mac computer sales are to existing owners, mostly because they have no real way of upgrading their machines without a wholesale replacement.

Total market penetration continues to creep. That's a good thing for Apple. As long as they take the long road, Microsoft may just choose to ignore them until it's too late. That's how Apple won the mp3 player market...off the MS radar.

excalpius said,
Indeed, and Gartner is doing a very poor job of reporting that the overwhelming majority of Mac computer sales are to existing owners, mostly because they have no real way of upgrading their machines without a wholesale replacement.

Total market penetration continues to creep. That's a good thing for Apple. As long as they take the long road, Microsoft may just choose to ignore them until it's too late. That's how Apple won the mp3 player market...off the MS radar.

I can agree with that, I think.

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.

It is just annoying.
While in theory those features are nice but in the practice is way better to use a workgroup + 3rd party software than using domain.

Magallanes said,
It is just annoying.
While in theory those features are nice but in the practice is way better to use a workgroup + 3rd party software than using domain.


How? Typically, Windows NT domain design (even back in the early days of domains) has *always* been a trunk/twig/leaf topology (if it sounds familiar, it should; the Internet typically uses the same stracture for domains and sub-domains; in fact, so does UNIX/Linux and even NetWare). Domain design is straightforward; it's domain *implementation* that gets screwball, and that typically has nothing to do with the software on the computers. The improvements and add-ons for Windows domains (such as ActiveDirectory) generally have been more about implementation than design (in fact, general domain design hasn't changed at its core since NT 3.5, or even LAN Manager). The problem (again, it has nothing to do really with the operating systems on the computers) is implementation, especially in a non-homogenous environment.

Magallanes said,
It is just annoying.
While in theory those features are nice but in the practice is way better to use a workgroup + 3rd party software than using domain.


You obviously dont have a 2003 or 2008 domain. Group policy is a life saver. Mac does not have anything similiar. Being able to install software via group policy or control how every desktop looks remotely is something we cant live without here at work.

majortom1981 said,

You obviously dont have a 2003 or 2008 domain. Group policy is a life saver. Mac does not have anything similiar. Being able to install software via group policy or control how every desktop looks remotely is something we cant live without here at work.

I was sysadmin since nt 4.0 (but not more).
Group policies runs fine BUT for some programs, for example Dongle (such Sentinel).
Domain accounts are fine, but if the server fail, then you are pretty screw, and not so many companies have the luxury to keep running a BDC. And domain accounts wasn't created thinking in notebook, roaming accounts are funny and new accounts (for example a customer) or they live in the workgroup or they are fuc** and forced to install to the domain.

In my experience, human resource management works better than any other kind of centralized restriction.

majortom1981 said,

You obviously dont have a 2003 or 2008 domain. Group policy is a life saver. Mac does not have anything similiar. Being able to install software via group policy or control how every desktop looks remotely is something we cant live without here at work.

majortom1981 said,
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.


You obviously haven't googled for a product like Likewise Enterprise which allows Group Policy to be set with WGM and published in AD. Takes care of #6 pretty quickly....
http://www.likewisesoftware.com/products/l...prise/index.php
http://www.likewisesoftware.com/register/?...access_controls

And you obviously have no clue how much would it cost to a company buying the hardware, the OS, and THEN buying also the 3rd party solution to implement 'group policies'. If you were the owner of such companies, you'd be installing Windows right about.. now.

Magallanes said,


I was sysadmin since nt 4.0 (but not more).
Group policies runs fine BUT for some programs, for example Dongle (such Sentinel).
Domain accounts are fine, but if the server fail, then you are pretty screw, and not so many companies have the luxury to keep running a BDC. And domain accounts wasn't created thinking in notebook, roaming accounts are funny and new accounts (for example a customer) or they live in the workgroup or they are fuc** and forced to install to the domain.

In my experience, human resource management works better than any other kind of centralized restriction.


yeah I can see why you're not a Sys Admin anymore.
Just a tip for you mate, its not NT4 time anymore. read, THEN post.

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.

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.

This is flat out ridiculous. I don't even think about Bill Gates or Steve Balmer when I'm buying Microsoft products, just as I don't think about Steve Jobs when I'm looking into Apple products. You don't need to. Why would you let such a foolish thing influence your product choice? Choose what works for you, not which exec you like better.

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.

GamblerFEXonlin said,
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.


Show me ANYTHING that is problem free. Any product. Anything with moving parts.

Yes, Apple makes nice hardware... but it can still fail. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE WE BUY!

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.

simon360 said,
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.

Well, It's good to know Mac users recognize that their OS security is low... Apple, at least as far as i know, isn't fast fixing security problems. They don't do any research on their OS, they just dont feel like they need. That's why hackers consider Mac OS X an easily hackable environment.
I must agree with the "Quality vs Quantity" part, i do see some great Mac OS X software, but it gets hard to find one app on the entire internet. On windows, you might not have the best, but at least you have something to work with.

Ricmacas said,

Well, It's good to know Mac users recognize that their OS security is low... Apple, at least as far as i know, isn't fast fixing security problems. They don't do any research on their OS, they just dont feel like they need. That's why hackers consider Mac OS X an easily hackable environment.
I must agree with the "Quality vs Quantity" part, i do see some great Mac OS X software, but it gets hard to find one app on the entire internet. On windows, you might not have the best, but at least you have something to work with.

Please use a Mac, and understand how it works before posting.

He has good points, give him a chance ;)

However, Apple does regularly push out security updates. Otherwise I completely agree with you. They don't need to worry too much, so they don't. There isn't a need to, and when there is I'm sure the efforts will step up, but I feel fairly safe right now anyway. No one's going to target a small market, when it's much easier to find a Windows box (not Windows exploit, but Windows box) to mess around with.

Ricmacas said,

Well, It's good to know Mac users recognize that their OS security is low... Apple, at least as far as i know, isn't fast fixing security problems. They don't do any research on their OS, they just dont feel like they need. That's why hackers consider Mac OS X an easily hackable environment.
I must agree with the "Quality vs Quantity" part, i do see some great Mac OS X software, but it gets hard to find one app on the entire internet. On windows, you might not have the best, but at least you have something to work with.

You gotta be joking right? OSX is a very secure OS and has been for sometime, it was Windows that was playing catch up. Apple are also very quick to patch security holes, they just don't make a big song and dance about it like MS does :P and you'll find you got your wires crossed, it's Windows that is the "easily hackable environment", although MS are working hard to change that. Windows has gotten better though, in a security conference a while ago the Mac was actually the first machine to be hacked (followed by Windows), however, that doesn't mean a Mac is less secure, it just means it's not the impregnable fortress many believe it is.

Back to what the original poster was talking about, I agree completely. As OSX gains market share it will become a bigger target for hackers/virus writers etc and what happened to Windows will happen to OSX, it's part and parcel with been #1. Therefore, the overall appeal of OSX will go away. It won't be cool to own a Mac anymore, because everyone else has one too, it'll just be another computer.

Xerxes said,

You gotta be joking right? OSX is a very secure OS and has been for sometime, it was Windows that was playing catch up. Apple are also very quick to patch security holes, they just don't make a big song and dance about it like MS does :P and you'll find you got your wires crossed, it's Windows that is the "easily hackable environment", although MS are working hard to change that. Windows has gotten better though, in a security conference a while ago the Mac was actually the first machine to be hacked (followed by Windows), however, that doesn't mean a Mac is less secure, it just means it's not the impregnable fortress many believe it is.

Back to what the original poster was talking about, I agree completely. As OSX gains market share it will become a bigger target for hackers/virus writers etc and what happened to Windows will happen to OSX, it's part and parcel with been #1. Therefore, the overall appeal of OSX will go away. It won't be cool to own a Mac anymore, because everyone else has one too, it'll just be another computer.


I don't think he knows what Unix is and how Unix was designed form day 1.

Wait, Unix? Actually OSX isn't that secure. It has had to do a lot of patching recently as its marketshare picked up. Still a lot more patching to do though.

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.

Digix said,
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.

Don't confuse "enthusiast" with "user."

Shutup LTD.
Digix is basically right. Apple, while they're within their rights to have proprietary this, and proprietary that, do not make themselves popular with people who want to get what they want. With Macs you always have to comprimise, they might make stuff better, but along with Sony (in the digital camera market), they insist on making stupid proprietary connectors. While I might like the piece of kit, I would much prefer a standard connector so I could use my own cables, instead of paying £19.99 for an iPod cable, etc. (As of last night, Argos) (Or in Sony's case, 40 Euros for a 2GB Memory Stick Duo, when my 2GB MicroSD and SD adapter cost me 10 euros... that's another story though)

Companies like Apple and Sony make a lot of their profit from proprietary connectors. It would be more convenient for the user if it was a standard connector but Apple gets more profit.
Apparently HP makes a greater percentage of profit from the sale of printer cartridges then any other thing they sell.

Sacha said,
Companies like Apple and Sony make a lot of their profit from proprietary connectors. It would be more convenient for the user if it was a standard connector but Apple gets more profit.
Apparently HP makes a greater percentage of profit from the sale of printer cartridges then any other thing they sell.

No kidding, I can't even imagine how much revenue they must get from toner alone... So damn expensive...

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

GreenMartian said,
Gamers maybe. Tech enthusiasts will try to get anything to install where they are not supposed to be installed. :)


I so agree with your statement. Well said. Well said indeed.

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..

#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!

vbagaria said,
#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!


you have no clue what you're talking about.

Are YOU going to convince Businesses that they should pay 2 Operating Systems for each computer they own???
Cause you need the licenses you know??

nmesisca said,

you have no clue what you're talking about.

Are YOU going to convince Businesses that they should pay 2 Operating Systems for each computer they own???
Cause you need the licenses you know??

http://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/comme...prise_near_you/

CISCO
Just a few years ago within Cisco, Macs were conspicuous mostly in their absence. Today, it is not unusual to find an increasing number of Apple logos across from me in meetings. For the first time in quite a while, Macs are again an orderable laptop option for Cisco employees.

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.

sweetsam said,
I want to tryout OSX but I am not interested in purchasing hardware from apple.

I'm in the same boat. I'm not going to spend the $ because Windows does everything perfectly fine for me. I am not biased and would use a Mac if it was a feasible option for me.

este said,
I'm in the same boat. I'm not going to spend the $ because Windows does everything perfectly fine for me. I am not biased and would use a Mac if it was a feasible option for me.

Oh, I spent a number of years buying PC components and building my own, but in the end, I got fed up and just wanted a good computer. So I got a Mac, and it's been great ever since. I'm fully aware of how to build a computer, I've got a Computer Science degree and I'm a programmer, but I don't need to waste my time building computers. I think many people do 'grow out' of it (or at least get enough money to avoid doing it!)

eAi said,
Oh, I spent a number of years buying PC components and building my own, but in the end, I got fed up and just wanted a good computer. So I got a Mac, and it's been great ever since.


It sounds like you don't know how to build a computer.

#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.

But that's the point exactly! People don't like the idea of a computer that is a mere "device" and not as customisable as a computer should be.

90% of people want a device that works and doesnt need any special hardware.
If you want a customized computer than apple is not for you... simple as that.

Ledward said,
But that's the point exactly! People don't like the idea of a computer that is a mere "device" and not as customisable as a computer should be.

I have never, ever regarded my mac as a mere "device."

The components in it are to my liking. I don't desire to change them. I chose them by buying my Mac. My Mac is "mine."

When you pick out your videocard when you build your PC, it doesn't have your name on it. You just chose it.

I have no problem with what's already in my Mac. What makes my Mac very personal, is how I feel when using the OS, day in, day out.

Don't confuse "enthusiast" with "user."

LTD said,
I have never, ever regarded my mac as a mere "device."

The components in it are to my liking. I don't desire to change them. I chose them by buying my Mac. My Mac is "mine."

When you pick out your videocard when you build your PC, it doesn't have your name on it. You just chose it.

I have no problem with what's already in my Mac. What makes my Mac very personal, is how I feel when using the OS, day in, day out.

Don't confuse "enthusiast" with "user."

Who really cares if it has your name on it or not. *laugh* I could care less, really. When I build my PC, it is MINE as well. The only difference is I get the same machine running Windows without spending a butt load of money.

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.

You can't presume to speak for Steve/Apple... But if you could, I would wager that Steve would absolutely love a Mac in every household all over the globe. Who wouldn't want their company to become a raving success worldwide, grabbing massive market share from all competitors?

But then of course, the onslaught of hackers/viruses/trojans/malware due to the great impact... ironically, advertising that a Mac is more secure (because of fewer viruses and attacks currently) works against the very concept. The more people buy the Mac, the more market share, the more hackers turn their attention... Apple's (and other misguided folks') insinuations and/or claims of a near-virus and malware-free environment should remain hush-hush, and market share remain very low, if they want to keep the hackers at bay.

No, the real reason is that Apple is allowed to exist because MS needs a "credible" competitor to keep from being declared and regulated as a monopoly. The SECOND Apple computer becomes a REAL threat to Windows, MS will squash their computer division like a grape. The Apple company is somewhat protected by the iPod etc. but OS X and Mac computers exist as a niche only by the deference of Microsoft. Besides, Jobs makes a LOT more money off of niche/clique computers, because it's clear these people will pay a LOT more than they have to just to be part of the Apple core.

excalpius said,
No, the real reason is that Apple is allowed to exist because MS needs a "credible" competitor to keep from being declared and regulated as a monopoly. The SECOND Apple computer becomes a REAL threat to Windows, MS will squash their computer division like a grape. The Apple company is somewhat protected by the iPod etc. but OS X and Mac computers exist as a niche only by the deference of Microsoft. Besides, Jobs makes a LOT more money off of niche/clique computers, because it's clear these people will pay a LOT more than they have to just to be part of the Apple core.

How could Microsoft do that?

Apple are within a year or two of making their Office apps real competitors to Office. They'll already suit 90% of people... Beyond that Apple don't depend on Microsoft for anything. Any move on Microsoft's part would be scrutinised by anti-trust regulators.

"It is simply because apple doesn't want to."

hahahahahahahahha
hohohohohohohhoho
hehehehehehheheehe

r u poet? u have great emotion.
man they do business. u may say "It is simply because iy's impossible for apple"

excalpius said,
No, the real reason is that Apple is allowed to exist because MS needs a "credible" competitor to keep from being declared and regulated as a monopoly. The SECOND Apple computer becomes a REAL threat to Windows, MS will squash their computer division like a grape. The Apple company is somewhat protected by the iPod etc. but OS X and Mac computers exist as a niche only by the deference of Microsoft. Besides, Jobs makes a LOT more money off of niche/clique computers, because it's clear these people will pay a LOT more than they have to just to be part of the Apple core.

Microsoft "allows" Apple to exist.

Even from a credible shareholder/market cap perspective, this is an impossibility.

"MS will squash their computer division . . ." ??? I'm not even sure what that means. Probably because it makes no sense.

LTD said,
Microsoft "allows" Apple to exist.
I'm not even sure what that means. Probably because it makes no sense.

Just ask Netscape, or AOL, or Yahoo, or how well Sony was doing with PS3 vs. 360, or any one of a 1,000 other companies that MS has bought or sent to the business graveyard. To deny MS's ability to end you is to deny the way the world works.

As I said before, the iPod and iPhone consumer product divisions insulate Apple from being just plain bought out. But MS has defeated companies like Sony through sheer force of will and oodles of cash. Don't ever forget it.

excalpius said,

Just ask Netscape, or AOL, or Yahoo, or how well Sony was doing with PS3 vs. 360, or any one of a 1,000 other companies that MS has bought or sent to the business graveyard. To deny MS's ability to end you is to deny the way the world works.

As I said before, the iPod and iPhone consumer product divisions insulate Apple from being just plain bought out. But MS has defeated companies like Sony through sheer force of will and oodles of cash. Don't ever forget it.

"sheer force of will and oodles of cash."

Tell me EXACTLY how MS will "defeat" Apple by "sheer force of will."

I still don't understand what you mean. Can you explain it?

You do of course know, that currently Apple has more cash than MS and is debt free. Apple can afford to buy Dell, with nothing more than its cash on hand. Apple's market cap is currently larger than that of Google ($130B vs. $107B) and almost equal to that of Cisco ($139B.) D I'm assuming you already knew all this.

Are you suggesting MS would/could pull off some sort of hostile takeover of Apple? Are you suggesting that MS liquidate a portion of its business in order to somehow (God only knows . . .) "defeat" Apple?

Or were you just speaking in terms of broad and very vague generalities that mean nothing in reality?

Not sure where you got those figures LTD.

Anyway, as to say Apple doesn't want the majority marketshare -- that's a joke. They have extensive marketing campaigns looking for just this -- marketshare.

Sacha said,
Not sure where you got those figures LTD.

Anyway, as to say Apple doesn't want the majority marketshare -- that's a joke. They have extensive marketing campaigns looking for just this -- marketshare.

Look them up anywhere.

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.

zivan56 said,
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.

OS X can emulate any of the other mainstream OSs, and any of the historical versions of OS X...

eAi said,

OS X can emulate any of the other mainstream OSs, and any of the historical versions of OS X...

You can install and run any OS on a Mac.

And being able to run some Win 3.11 software on Vista is part of the problem with Windows code.

zivan56 said,
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.

And that's supposed to be a good thing? No way ! all the dlls and system files required to run these old useless apps are everywhere in the Windows folder! It might have been ok if MS would have done it properly and encapsulated legacy support.

LTD said,

You can install and run any OS on a Mac.

And being able to run some Win 3.11 software on Vista is part of the problem with Windows code.


DING!

The main problem with ANY version of windows is this retarded concept of "backwards compatibility", it needs to go and fast.

LTD said,
You can install and run any OS on a Mac.

And being able to run some Win 3.11 software on Vista is part of the problem with Windows code.

The day that dies is when Windows 64-bit is mainstream. We're slowly heading there.

Though if you ask me, what's the harm of it staying there? They need to keep a balance - preserve compatibility to a certain degree, and embrace new technologies. Just picking an arbitrarily defined date as the day backwards compatibility vanishes from Windows is a suicidal move. Suicidal = avalanche of lawsuits :P

rm20010 said,

The day that dies is when Windows 64-bit is mainstream. We're slowly heading there.

Though if you ask me, what's the harm of it staying there? They need to keep a balance - preserve compatibility to a certain degree, and embrace new technologies. Just picking an arbitrarily defined date as the day backwards compatibility vanishes from Windows is a suicidal move. Suicidal = avalanche of lawsuits :P


Suicidal? I think not. The main problem with Windows is that it's got way too much garbage under the hood trying to keep all this backwards compatibility. Microsoft may lose some business from getting rid of backwards compatibility but it won't be as many as they'd gain from making the system more stable and generally bringing it into the 21st century.

QuarterSwede said,

Suicidal? I think not. The main problem with Windows is that it's got way too much garbage under the hood trying to keep all this backwards compatibility. Microsoft may lose some business from getting rid of backwards compatibility but it won't be as many as they'd gain from making the system more stable and generally bringing it into the 21st century.


You have a fair and valid point. Personally, I feel that the "Business" version of Windows should have the backwards compatibility they have now... and the "Home" edition should be more cutting edge. That would solve the problem, IMHO.

rm20010 said,

The day that dies is when Windows 64-bit is mainstream. We're slowly heading there.

Though if you ask me, what's the harm of it staying there? They need to keep a balance - preserve compatibility to a certain degree, and embrace new technologies. Just picking an arbitrarily defined date as the day backwards compatibility vanishes from Windows is a suicidal move. Suicidal = avalanche of lawsuits :P

The problem is the way we're doing backwards compatibility is to have 5,000 mismatched versions of everything. You don't get full BC (a fair number of things don't work in 64-bit Vista, and hell, old drivers are always a crapshoot), and you get bloat.

This was probably necessary when it was "Run Win3.1 apps on a Pentium 100 with Win95", as it was the only way to do things.

The way we should do backwards compatibility now is a seamless virtualization. Take the hit of running the app in a penalty box-- odds are, if it's not designed for the current OS, it doesn't need the full system's performance. If the app is tagged "Run in Windows 3.1", clone a Windows 3.1 VM, run the application in it, and map the acceptable changes the app makes to the VM back to the real machine

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.

they may have more money, but that's only because of the Ipod. In fact, Apple is around because of the Ipod.

Apple has a long way before becoming mainstream, corporately accepted, etc...

Great article. A couple gray arguments but overall well written

Apple has more money than microsoft?
Microsoft:
Mkt Cap: 180.58B
Revenue: 60.42B
Operating Income: 22B
Net Income: 17B
Employees: 89,000 in 105 countries

Apple:
Mkt Cap: 80.11B
Revenue: 22B
Operating Income: 6.4B
Gross income: 4.3B
Employees: 29,000

You must be watching those ads a little bit too much.

Not to mention Microsoft only makes software and XBox 360. Heck IBM still makes more than Apple does:

IBM
Revenue 98.8B
Operating income 10B

I own a Mac, but your points are either fan-biased or a little out of touch with the spirit of neutral arguing. You take points which support your argument but you don't compare it to the bigger picture.

Great that a company decides to throw away 10,000 PCs for 10,000 macs. Good business practice? I'm not so sure.

wankey said,
Apple has more money than microsoft?
Microsoft:
Mkt Cap: 180.58B
Revenue: 60.42B
Operating Income: 22B
Net Income: 17B
Employees: 89,000 in 105 countries

Apple:
Mkt Cap: 80.11B
Revenue: 22B
Operating Income: 6.4B
Gross income: 4.3B
Employees: 29,000

You must be watching those ads a little bit too much.

Not to mention Microsoft only makes software and XBox 360. Heck IBM still makes more than Apple does:

IBM
Revenue 98.8B
Operating income 10B

I own a Mac, but your points are either fan-biased or a little out of touch with the spirit of neutral arguing. You take points which support your argument but you don't compare it to the bigger picture.

Great that a company decides to throw away 10,000 PCs for 10,000 macs. Good business practice? I'm not so sure.



+1 for knowing what you're talking about and trying to be unbiased.

wankey said,
Apple has more money than microsoft?
Microsoft:
Mkt Cap: 180.58B
Revenue: 60.42B
Operating Income: 22B
Net Income: 17B
Employees: 89,000 in 105 countries

Apple:
Mkt Cap: 80.11B
Revenue: 22B
Operating Income: 6.4B
Gross income: 4.3B
Employees: 29,000

You must be watching those ads a little bit too much.
...

He said 'cash', not market cap. Apple has $24.5 billion in cash, Microsoft has $20.7 billion. I agree, that's not the only thing that matters, but you're using the wrong figures.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/ap...o_microsoft_08/

Apple has more cash then? Bill Gates has twice as much cash as Microsoft?
Anyway, Microsoft is making 4 times the profit, so what does that tell you?

As for Mac's being cheaper. Dream on. They sell them at a more expensive price as it gives an image of superiority and makes the product look elitist. They teach this in Marketing 1 at my university and actually use Mac as an example. This is its selling point among the niche group that purchase them.

Four years later:

Their switching experience can be summed up in two quotes:

They've made an unbelievably transparent computing experience that I actually look forward to.

and
It̢۪s just really ****ing good and that̢۪s all. ... I̢۪m not ready to star in one of those annoying switch ads but it̢۪s safe to call me a convert. I̢۪m not going to ditch my PC anytime soon but I actually get excited when I think about using the Mac.

#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.

Access licenses are a bit expensive on Windows, but for a small company, SBS 2008 Standard with the base 5 CALs is only $90 more and is undisputably more powerful software. You would have to go past 100 CALs to reach the 10x cost mark, at which point getting the Standard versions of Windows/Exchange is cheaper (and cheaper still if you don't want Exchange).

Remember that Microsoft is competing with free, and Apple's always charged a premium for their stuff. Especially when you consider that the base Xserve costs $3000 (IBM will do a quality box for far less or a better box for the same), pitching Apple as a value server seems a bit silly.

And seeing the "On/Off" switch for OS X Server's mail daemon absolutely kills me.

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?

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.

Faisal Islam said,
lolz...actually Apple knows they never can do it, i mean they never can beat Microsoft.

+1
they make ad like "Animal (Tiger/Goat/Ass) vs Windows"...


"Beat" them at what, exactly?

LTD said,


"Beat" them at what, exactly?


The problem is that people don't understand that Apple isn't competing with Microsoft. They're competing with Dell, etc.

Why would Apple want Microsoft to fail when they allow (through Bootcamp, parallels, etc.) you to run Windows? How many people bought a Mac simply because of that solution?

QuarterSwede said,

The problem is that people don't understand that Apple isn't competing with Microsoft. They're competing with Dell, etc.

Why would Apple want Microsoft to fail when they allow (through Bootcamp, parallels, etc.) you to run Windows? How many people bought a Mac simply because of that solution?

Which I still don't understand... Why do people buy a Mac so that they can run Windows on it?!?! Do they need to look 'cool'? Because honestly they don't...

I think the point is that they get OSX and windows, both OS's have uses and people want to have the best of both. The thing that i'm against is the price of the hardware.

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.

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

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

Why would they choose not to? Don't they want people to use their OS? For me #5 and #2 are the biggest points. And is it just me or are there two number 4s...?

Oh and great article by the way. I'd like to see more of this Mac abuse... I mean content

LordJTC said,
Why would they choose not to? Don't they want people to use their OS? For me #5 and #2 are the biggest points. And is it just me or are there two number 4s...?

Oh and great article by the way. I'd like to see more of this Mac abuse... I mean content :)

Start with #3 if you want people to use it let them use it. restricted platform is the beginning.

They don't 'choose not to'. They choose anything that offers a larger profit. Otherwise their shareholders would not be happy. The same with any company.

Sacha said,
They don't 'choose not to'. They choose anything that offers a larger profit. Otherwise their shareholders would not be happy. The same with any company.

I'd more then likely say they choose not to rather rely on their propaganda advertising and over enthusiastic users. What could be better then trapping users and making them pay more and more ?

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.

majortom1981 said,
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.


You obviously haven't googled for a product like Likewise Enterprise which allows Group Policy to be set with WGM and published in AD. Takes care of #6 pretty quickly....
http://www.likewisesoftware.com/products/l...prise/index.php
http://www.likewisesoftware.com/register/?...access_controls

Yeah... Likewise may work (I don't know), but it costs quite a bit per-seat, plus installation, it doesn't seem worth it when Windows has it built-in to the operating system.

Likewise Enterprise prices:
Per server: $299 (not terrible)
Per client: $59

And you only get volume discounts on servers, not clients.

#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

Brandon said,
#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

companies can get major discounts I'm sure, and also schools aswell. So #2 isn't really valid.

offroadaaron said,

companies can get major discounts I'm sure, and also schools aswell. So #2 isn't really valid.

Students get $50-100 off. Whoopdee Doo. Thats still $1200 vs

Not if you buy directly from a university, instead of through apple.com. The local university here will save you about $300 iirc, on any Mac they sell. Apple's education store discounts are a farce, but the universities get good deals in their own stores.

simon360 said,
Not if you buy directly from a university, instead of through apple.com. The local university here will save you about $300 iirc, on any Mac they sell. Apple's education store discounts are a farce, but the universities get good deals in their own stores.


Exactly. Therefore, students population out of general population in percentage = Apple's market share.

Brandon said,

Students get $50-100 off. Whoopdee Doo. Thats still $1200 vs


Where did I say student discounts, and does any other company you know do student discounts anyways?

I mean companies get a huge reduction in price im sure!

#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?)