CNN/Money: Apple's iTunes store 'doesn't matter'

[groovebuster]

@orangedv:

Thanks, we think alike it seems.

Greetings,

groovebuster

 

[MarkCollette]

Over the past year, we've been working our way out of a recession. So, I can understand if Apple did not target consumers before then, since computer sales were down. But now they have no excuse. All the software ducks are lined up. Now is the time to strike with hardware.

Hopefully they won't repeat the idiocy of last September, when they did not upgrade notebooks before people went off to school.

 

[mj_1903]

I suspect in the next few years Apple will either wow everyone (and thereby gain marketshare) or vanish completely.

My hoping right now is that this lull Apple is going through with product updates is to release a slew of perfect consumer and pro models.

There is always hope I suppose, but I know the software guys are working very, very hard.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Yes you have to pay attention to what consumers want, but at the same time you can't let the inmates run the asylum. There are people that want Apple to offer a $499 machine because Dell offers a $499 machine and that's not feasible<sp?> at all for any computer company except Dell. I do agree that the current iMacs are either underpowered or overpriced.

Groovebuster, SGI's problem isn't that it works in a niche market, its problem is that it didn't pay attention to changes in that niche market. Same thing, though not as severe, with Avid (which is one reason FCP took off like it did).


Lethal

 

[rueyeet]

Wrong! [Consumers] also care about the Specs! Because that's the only thing they can relate to when they don't know anything about computers! 10GB must be better than 5GB, because it's bigger! Why do you think the Megahertz Myth was born? Not because of some IT geeks who wet their pants over them, it was the consumers!

So what cosumers care about in first place are the specs and then reliability and usability... and when all the neighbours use the same thing (Wintel) it can't be that bad, right???

Where one number is clearly bigger than another in a comparable measurement, yes, the consumers want the bigger number. But to figure out whether a Pentium is a better processor than an AMD or a Celeron, or to figure out which graphics card is faster, or whatever else, they rely on the tech press: PC Magazine and the like. And those publications have simply never given the Mac more than minimal coverage, much less fair coverage. This has changed a little with the advent of OS X, but by then, the damage to mindshare was done, and marketshare follows mindshare.

Consumers don't know what they want, except that they want bigger, better, faster, and more. They rely on advertising and tech publications to tell them what that is. And those publications always say that's Wintel, and that's what the general consumers have at work, and that's what the Joneses have next door, and so John Q. Public doesn't really know a Mac from a Golden Delicious. And they're not going to choose something they don't know about.

All Apple has to do is sell to the consumer. Do that and they will make a path to Apples door.

Not without a heck of a lot more advertising and positive coverage in the mainstream technical press, they won't.

Now, I'd agree that Apple needs to increase marketshare at least somewhat. But I don't think cheaper computers, or more configurability, is the miracle panacea to Apple's marketshare problem. Power-users and pro-sumers know and care about components. The mass-market consumers just need to read in their favorite PC magazine that the Mac's specs are good. (From the sound of it, Dont Hurt Me, you're not really a typical mass-market consumer, whatever your budget may be).

In other words, people need to know more about the Mac. Apple needs to get an advertising campaign that works, and do more to promote the Mac to the mainstream tech press instead of relying on outlets like Macworld, which is already specific to the Mac audience. The iPod has already demonstrated that people will pay more if the product is well-known--and well-hyped--enough.

Someone asked to name one innovation by Apple that has had any real influence on the industry. The funny thing is, Apple has done something really huge: put a real, usable, graphical interface over Unix. Linux, despite all its advances, has yet to get anywhere close to the sheer out-of-box usability of OS X. And all this on a platform that you can run the almighty MS Office on! Yet no one gives this achievement much credit outside some of the geekier publications. Why? What gives? I see all these continuing reports on "is Linux ready for prime time" and yet no mention of how Apple's OS X already is.

If I was more conspiracy-minded, I'd swear that Microsoft was buying the good will of some (or most!) of these magazines.....

 

[applebum]

98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

This just isn't the correct way to examine market share. You cannot translate 2% marketshare into 98 out of 100 don't buy Apple. This is just too simplistic and doesn't tell the whole story. For example, you have 3 buyers - 1 is a business and the other 2 are individuals. The business buys 98 inexpensive Windows computers while the 2 individuals both buy Macs. Now, 2 out of 3 buyers have bought Macs, but Apple's marketshare is still just 2 percent. I am not saying this is how it really is in the computer market, just pointing out that marketshare isn't and end all be all number.

I think most of us way overestimate the "average" computer user. I think the average user doesn't want much more than internet, e-mail, and maybe some word processing. Maybe some games, or some other play around with software - photo editing, greeting cards, etc. While I think the Mac is perfect for all of this, particularly if the customer has no computer experience at all, there is the thought that Macs are too expensive. Unfortunately, once these people talk with a sales person, they are buying the "biggest hd, the best video card, a cd/dvd burner" and they have spent as much on the PC as they would have on the comparable eMac. There is also the concern that "no one they know has a Mac", and thus they won't be able to get help with something when they need it. I think the only thing Apple could do to get this "average" customer would be to have a $300 machine, and that won't happen. Gaining market share is an uphill climb and I doubt that Apple could do anything today that would change market share inside of a year. I believe they will gain marketshare by outlasting some of these competitors that aren't turning a profit. If they can be one of 5 or so major brands, they will gain share.

Also, software companies aren't going to stop making stuff for Apple, unless Apple just starts making something better. Their are plenty of independant developers that will make software - can you say Version Tracker. Also, look at different markets. Hollywood uses a lot of Macs - an article I saw today read "In Hollywood, Even the Writers use Macs" (something along those lines). Also the music industry is a big Mac supporter. Software companies don't care about overall marketshare, they care about how many people will be able to use/buy their software. Marketshare will keep some companies away from Apple, but others will be there to make an effort.

Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.

 

[MarkCollette]

Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.

Yes, but that guy, the CFO, has left.

 

[groovebuster]

Groovebuster, SGI's problem isn't that it works in a niche market, its problem is that it didn't pay attention to changes in that niche market. Same thing, though not as severe, with Avid (which is one reason FCP took off like it did).

Dude, exactly what I said...

The reasons why exactly a company fails in a niche market are manifold. "Not paying attention" is just one of them... But it doesn't change the fact that a niche market is a very dangerous place on the long run. If I fail in that niche market, I'm dead! That's why every company (that has a good management) tries to diversify into other markets. And no, I don't think the iPod is the right strategy for Apple to do so...

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Where one number is clearly bigger than another in a comparable measurement, yes, the consumers want the bigger number. But to figure out whether a Pentium is a better processor than an AMD or a Celeron, or to figure out which graphics card is faster, or whatever else, they rely on the tech press: PC Magazine and the like. And those publications have simply never given the Mac more than minimal coverage, much less fair coverage. This has changed a little with the advent of OS X, but by then, the damage to mindshare was done, and marketshare follows mindshare.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Professional PC magazines always wrote about the Mac. That consumer magazines didn't and still don't has one simple reason... The Mac is not really comparable to a Wintel machine. A Windows PC always runs Windows, runs the same programs. Benchmarks can be compared directly. How do you compare Benchmarks between different platforms in an objective way? Software is not optimized or available and even the parts of the computer are not really comparable (CPU, Motherboard, special version of the graphic card, etc...) Believe me, if they would have a Mac with every comparing test they are doing, they would have to double the length of the articles to explain the Mac for Dummies again and again. And in the end the numbers are not even comparable just like that. What is the benefit for giving free advertisement to Apple all the time, when it only has 2% of the market?

Consumers don't know what they want, except that they want bigger, better, faster, and more.

Exactly! And if there is something that is exotic and the numbers are not really comparable, they don't give a **** about it!

The mass-market consumers just need to read in their favorite PC magazine that the Mac's specs are good.

Wrong again. They also compare prizes. And Mac is more expensive. You get more bang for the buck with a Windows machine. Like it or not, but consumers are influenced by two things: prize and specs. A thing has to be cheap and has to have good specs. They don't mind to pay more for a good item when the specs are also outstanding. But they don't pay double the prize for something just because it's "different".

The iPod has already demonstrated that people will pay more if the product is well-known--and well-hyped--enough.

The (young) mp3-player market is something totally different and not comparable to the computer market.

Someone asked to name one innovation by Apple that has had any real influence on the industry.

That someone was me!

The funny thing is, Apple has done something really huge: put a real, usable, graphical interface over Unix.

Yup, really nice... And what was the big impact on the industry? That's right! There wasn't any!

Linux, despite all its advances, has yet to get anywhere close to the sheer out-of-box usability of OS X. And all this on a platform that you can run the almighty MS Office on! Yet no one gives this achievement much credit outside some of the geekier publications. Why? What gives? I see all these continuing reports on "is Linux ready for prime time" and yet no mention of how Apple's OS X already is.

Again... Comparing features is one thing. The question was, if Apple MOVED anything in the industry. And it didn't! I find it funny that, when I raise that question, people always start to tell me about the features of Mac OS X. History is full of cool inventions or developments that never had an impact on anything.

Cheers,

groovebuster


P.S.: Did it ever cross your mind, that Mac OS X is not mentioned in publications, because it's running on proprietary hardware? Standard hardware is x86 compatible, like it or not.

 

[groovebuster]

98 out of 100 buyers dont buy a mac and this number could be 99 this qtr.

This just isn't the correct way to examine market share. You cannot translate 2% marketshare into 98 out of 100 don't buy Apple. This is just too simplistic and doesn't tell the whole story. For example, you have 3 buyers - 1 is a business and the other 2 are individuals. The business buys 98 inexpensive Windows computers while the 2 individuals both buy Macs. Now, 2 out of 3 buyers have bought Macs, but Apple's marketshare is still just 2 percent. I am not saying this is how it really is in the computer market, just pointing out that marketshare isn't and end all be all number.

Your point is???

I think most of us way overestimate the "average" computer user. I think the average user doesn't want much more than internet, e-mail, and maybe some word processing. Maybe some games, or some other play around with software - photo editing, greeting cards, etc.

I think most if us totally overestimate the "average" car driver. I think the average driver doesn't want much more than...

Get the point?

While I think the Mac is perfect for all of this, particularly if the customer has no computer experience at all, there is the thought that Macs are too expensive.

1. Macs are not perfect for all this
2. Macs ARE too expensive

Unfortunately, once these people talk with a sales person, they are buying the "biggest hd, the best video card, a cd/dvd burner" and they have spent as much on the PC as they would have on the comparable eMac.

The eMac isn't comparable to any current PC Hardware anymore. It's totally outdated and it is an all-in-one machine. Find me one PC that has bad specs like the eMac and costs as much.

I believe they will gain marketshare by outlasting some of these competitors that aren't turning a profit. If they can be one of 5 or so major brands, they will gain share.

Wrong! Because the "competitors" are selling Wintel machines. So actually Apple has just one competitor: all the PC manufacturers together. And it doesn't matter if there are 20 or only 5 of them. If a Wintel PC manufacturer dies doesn't help Apple at all.

Also, software companies aren't going to stop making stuff for Apple, unless Apple just starts making something better.

Companies make software for the Mac when there is an ROI. Period! Only exception is MS Office for Mac, since MS needs Apple alive.

Their are plenty of independant developers that will make software - can you say Version Tracker. Also, look at different markets. Hollywood uses a lot of Macs - an article I saw today read "In Hollywood, Even the Writers use Macs" (something along those lines). Also the music industry is a big Mac supporter. Software companies don't care about overall marketshare, they care about how many people will be able to use/buy their software.

Exactly! And in most cases that means lots of work for 2% of the market with no ROI. You were talking about niche markets again...

Marketshare will keep some companies away from Apple, but others will be there to make an effort.

It keeps most of them away.

Beyond that, I think anyone that can rescue a company from bankruptcy and make that company debt free has some business sense. Apple will release some updates and new products long before there is any chance of the company going under.

In Jobs we trust, huh?

Grüße,

groovebuster

 

[Krizoitz]

First. Marketshare doesn't equal total users. Studies have shown that Macs last longer. Also Apple market share numbers are probably much higher in the consumer market, as unfortunately a lot of buisness for various reasons, including inertia.

Second, feature for feature Macs ARE competative, there is however PC's on the cheaper end.

Third. I'm sick of hearing everyone and there mother say that Steve Jobs is intentionally not putting out new Macs. Are you kidding me? He is actually NOT puting out computers that will sell well?

Fourth. What is everyones problem with the iPod. First they say apple needs to expand its markets, then they get pissed when they do. And I'm pretty sure that they aren't taking money away from the computer side to focus only on iPods.

 

[groovebuster]

First. Marketshare doesn't equal total users. Studies have shown that Macs last longer.

So what? Even if some people are still using an LCII (like my step-father) as a "type-writer", they are not in the market for buying a brand new MS Office, because they just don't need it or it won't run on their hardware. I know so many Macs that were never upgraded after the purchase years ago. They are just used! The people who are really buying new software are those who don't have a Mac longer than the average PC user. They need power! I don't wonder that so many had to stick with their Macs for such a long time... Apple just didn't release really faster machines (G4 anyone?) for about 2 years!

Also Apple market share numbers are probably much higher in the consumer market, as unfortunately a lot of buisness for various reasons, including inertia.

Probably...?

Second, feature for feature Macs ARE competative, there is however PC's on the cheaper end.

You mean the G5s? They are not too bad, that's right. At least they are not too far from a Wintel PC. But all the other lines are a joke! You don't even find a piece of junk like the eMac in the Wintel world anymore, especially not for that price...

Fourth. What is everyones problem with the iPod. First they say apple needs to expand its markets, then they get pissed when they do. And I'm pretty sure that they aren't taking money away from the computer side to focus only on iPods.

The problem is, that the iPod is making the profits for Apple at the moment. Without the iPod Apple would be dead by now. Apple is a computer company in first place but is failing in that regard since years. THAT is what people are pissed about. Try to see the big picture. Apple only survives at the moment because it has the iPod... And that is pretty bad for a computer company calling itself "innovative". Mac OS X is out since 3 years and it still doesn't have any impact on the rest of the computer market, because Apple can't offer an outstanding software/hardware package. 3 years is enough time to reorganize the product matrix and to do aggressive marketing (and succesful) marketing. But Apple is dropping the ball again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again...

It's always fun to read how Mac fanatics defend "holy" Apple no matter what! Of course I like the Mac as a tool, but why wouldn't I be critical about what they are doing nevertheless? I earn money with my computers and for me it is a crucial business decision, if I stick with a computer platform... and like that it is for most other business people as well.

groovebuster

 

[LethalWolfe]

Dude, exactly what I said...

The reasons why exactly a company fails in a niche market are manifold. "Not paying attention" is just one of them... But it doesn't change the fact that a niche market is a very dangerous place on the long run. If I fail in that niche market, I'm dead! That's why every company (that has a good management) tries to diversify into other markets. And no, I don't think the iPod is the right strategy for Apple to do so...

groovebuster

From your original post it sounded like you were saying SGI had problems becuase it was in a niche market, not because of poor management. If you have poor management it doesn't matter if you have a niche market or a broad market you are going to have problems. There are plently of niche market companies that are doing fine. For example, Canopus, Pinnalce, AJA, Decklink, and Avid.

SGI's problem wasn't that it was a niche market, but that it was poorly managed.

In some cases diversifing<sp?> into other markets isn't the right solution (jack of all trades, master of none). That's one reason why Apple's success w/FCP is so note worthy. Apple is gaining a lot of ground in a market tradionaly held by niche companies. But many people are wondering what direction Apple is going to take FCP. Are they going to make it jack-of-all-trades type program or are they going to really refine it as an editor? I know the release of FCP 4 dissapointed many editors in a way because it leaned more towards "jack-of-all-trades" than it did "refined editor." Anyway, now I'm just ranting.


Lethal

 

[Edot]

This is hilarious

It is funny everyone talking about Apple going under. Did you know about the company in the 90's. If they were able to survive then than they are in really really great shape now. They have been able to expand there products and make profits during a very bad economic cycle. The 90's were booming and Apple was in very very bad shape. I don't understand how you justify saying the will be gone shortly. Just the opposite. I don't think they will have more than 2-5% market share for awhile, but when Longhorn comes out and consumers start to mass upgrade, if Apple has a good solution they are in a position to gain marketshare. Again, I don't think that staying within 2-5% is bad for them anyways. 27 year old companies usually don't just disappear. Especially when they are making money.

 

[transistor]

Remember "competition"? Economics 101 too.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but some of you seem to forget that computer market is a monopoly.
Please don't start flaming me about passing all Apple's griefs to Microsoft, but we should not ignore the fact that the computer market is controlled by Microsoft. Only Microsoft, not Intel. What would happen if Microsoft decided to drop the Intel architecture and go PPC?

I don't think Apple can increase their marketshare significantly based on their pricing or specs in the current market conditions.

Don't get me wrong! I love Apple and Macs, I have a bunch of them and I'll keep buying them as long as they exist and I wish they can find a way to increase their marketshare anytime.

 

[Koodauw]

While no one makes the right choice all the time...

Jeez. Everyone here is a critic. You all think you know what is best for Apple.*Maybe you don't.* I know this may be hard for alot of you to swallow, but it is true. Let Steve run Apple the way he sees fit.

 

[Darwin]

Market Share = No. of sales

This comes out every year right?

Wintel have 95%+ every year

Macs have something like 1.7% but we have ~25 million users now

Even if we had 10x more users, if the Macs still last longer you go back to the 1.7% again so it is the users we really want, not the market share

If Apple is in trouble Apple will know, at the end of the day if they mess up they will be the ones who pay the price, are they gonna kill themselfs just to annoy you people? To be honest I think they have done well to stay up and running.

 

[applebum]

More eloquent than I...

While a bit old, this article speaks to most of what has been argued here. Very interesting read.

Link

 

[groovebuster]

Sorry, but I think this article is BS... that guy is just twisting the numbers and bending the facts so that everything looks as rosy as he wants it to be.

This guy really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I really don't feel like discussing the details here over and over again. I just find it interesting that almost everything he said is the opposite of my personal experience in the IT business. Sad enough that he really thinks he is smart and figured it all out... Poor guy! How embarassing for him! He should do himself a favour by not writing anymore...

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

SGI's problem wasn't that it was a niche market, but that it was poorly managed.

When you are losing a niche market it is always because of bad management in some way... Apple lost a huge chunk of the DTP market the last few years and still is. And that is the part of the market where Apple was always strong, because they invented it.

In some cases diversifing<sp?> into other markets isn't the right solution (jack of all trades, master of none).

A computer company like Apple needs to be present in all markets. Actually they build an OS and the hardware needed for it. The OS isn't specialized for anything, it is just the platform to run some specialized software. I never heard that Windows XP runs only Office apps well. That's exactly why people use it and it is still so succesful, because they know they can use it for anything (that's the theory at least). There is no benefit for Apple to be the hero of a niche market and to promote that to the potential customers.

But I think we are running in circles now... There are those who are sceptical about where Apple is going the next few years and those who claim the Titanic is unsinkable and go on partying. We'll see who's gonna be right. I don't have a problem to stand corrected when the time has come...

groovebuster

 

[JamesDPS]

Below 3% market share is a very very dangerous position to be in for this reason; at that level software companies will not see a return on development costs for software. Apple will have to rely on the hardwork being done for PC versions, and hope the development costs of a quick and painless port can be recovered from its tiny marketshare. The practicle upshot of that is do NOT expect any cool software coming out for the mac before the PC unless Apple have made it. For a company that is a byword for innovation, this ain't good. As a small example, AOL delayed porting its browser to OSX for the UK market for a long time because it couldnt recoup development costs to localise the English it was written in to start with. Once Apple reach a tipping point, Adobe will walk and so will Microsoft, then its game over, simple as that. If Adobe abandon Apple, and Apples iApps are fuel on the fire, I leave Apple, I need Adobe more than Apple.

Not to beat on a dead horse, but market share and install base are different things, and when it comes to software development, install base (Apple has around 10%) is the important factor. And before you start saying that a low market share will lower install base, which is theoretically correct all other things being equal, remember that all other things are NOT equal. Just think of the longevity of Macs -- right now I'm using a 400 MHz G3 laptop (Pismo) that I've had for 4 YEARS, and it totally keeps up with my roommate's brand new Dell laptop (not to mention OS X is just a little better than winxp). Yeah, so he paid about half what I did, but I don't even want to start listing the ways my laptop is still better they are too many.

Another factor is that one mac can (in some lines of work) do the job of several PeeCees. I plan to get a rev. b PM G5 the morning they're introduced (yes, that has been a VERY frustrating wait, so I'm not defending Apple COMPLETELY ) to use with Logic Pro 6 (which, btw is VERY well made software -- it actually runs REALLY WELL on my measly G3 400!). The only halfway decent sequencer on windows is Cubase, which I dislike intensely (and it's so UGLY, which is kind of distracting in a creative field), and you would easily need 3 dual-xeons or 3.2GHz P4s to do the job of one mac. Not to mention you'd be paying an arm and a leg to upgrade the PeeCees to support high-end audio needs. To those complaining that macs are not "high-end" enough, consider that you would need to spend at LEAST $150 on a sound card to even APPROACH the kind of low latency macs acheive with their built-in sound and Core Audio.

As for Adobe, I find it hard to imagine them leaving Apple, they would be shooting themselves in the foot (I assume you're talking mainly about Photoshop and Illustrator). I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but in my experience, the majority of professional graphic designers and illustrators that I know are on Mac, and I know quite a few. I know Apple probably doesn't have a majority install base in that field, but they certainly have enough for software development to remain profitable for a long time to come. MS stopping Office for Mac would bring down Apple, but clearly they're making money on it still, even with the dire year that we've had, not to mention the anti-trust issues if they were to discontinue mac development; of course, then I suppose OpenOffice or something would come to OS X... (and besides, TextEdit is so much better than Word, anyway!) And who cares about AOL? Their software totally sucks regardless of the platform.... to force mac users to look elsewhere for an ISP would be doing them a huge favor.

Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...

 

[groovebuster]

Not to beat on a dead horse, but market share and install base are different things, and when it comes to software development, install base (Apple has around 10%) is the important factor.

Too bad, that Adobe for example only releases MacOS X software anymore. Someone who has an old old Mac isn't in the market for new software. The installed base doesn't mean you sell your software to 10% of computer users. The people who buy the new software in most cases are these who also buy the new computers, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense for them. I know so many graphic artists who still have an old Mac, like a PowerMac B&W and they are still running Freehand 9, XPress 3.32 and Photoshop 6.0, because it just works, they couldn't even install Photshop CS on their machine... So the truth is that install base doesn't mean anything.

And before you start saying that a low market share will lower install base, which is theoretically correct all other things being equal, remember that all other things are NOT equal. Just think of the longevity of Macs

I really wonder who invented the myth, that PCs become slower when they get older. Dude, PCs last as long as Macs, there is no difference! That people are using their Macs longer is a totally different subject. But I know many people with 4 or 5 y.o. PCs or Laptops that are still running fine and they are still using them on a daily basis...

-- right now I'm using a 400 MHz G3 laptop (Pismo) that I've had for 4 YEARS, and it totally keeps up with my roommate's brand new Dell laptop (not to mention OS X is just a little better than winxp). Yeah, so he paid about half what I did, but I don't even want to start listing the ways my laptop is still better they are too many.

Your Pismo running OS X is keeping up with a brand new Dell Laptop? I don't think so... That Mac OS X is better than XP is no question, but the hardware? C'mon, stop that biased babbling.

Another factor is that one mac can (in some lines of work) do the job of several PeeCees.

... examples? Now it is starting to become interesting...

I plan to get a rev. b PM G5 the morning they're introduced (yes, that has been a VERY frustrating wait, so I'm not defending Apple COMPLETELY )

Why not buying the current G5? Since it is soooooooo superior it will still blow any PC out of the water for the next 8 years, since Macs last so much longer.

to use with Logic Pro 6 (which, btw is VERY well made software -- it actually runs REALLY WELL on my measly G3 400!).

That's another myth and I wonder if you ever really used Logic. As soon as you start to use some effects or more than 4 tracks (let's just call it "serious work"), your pismo will fail in every way possible. So far about "really well"...

The only halfway decent sequencer on windows is Cubase, which I dislike intensely (and it's so UGLY, which is kind of distracting in a creative field), and you would easily need 3 dual-xeons or 3.2GHz P4s to do the job of one mac.

Man... Logic was also available for the PC until Apple bought emagic and dumped the PC version. Ugliness is something totally subjective and can't be discussed. I know quit some people doing a good job with Cubase SX on a PC. And that you don't know any other music production software than Logic and Cubase tells already the whole story...

Not to mention you'd be paying an arm and a leg to upgrade the PeeCees to support high-end audio needs. To those complaining that macs are not "high-end" enough, consider that you would need to spend at LEAST $150 on a sound card to even APPROACH the kind of low latency macs acheive with their built-in sound and Core Audio.

Even more BS! The onboard sound of the Macs is far from high-end. Low latency doesn't help, when it sounds like crap. If you want to record music with a computer you always need a good sound card with pro A/D & D/A converters. And those cards cost the same for Mac and PC...

As for Adobe, I find it hard to imagine them leaving Apple, they would be shooting themselves in the foot (I assume you're talking mainly about Photoshop and Illustrator).

Adobe sticks with Apple as long as they can make a profit by doing so. They already abandonned Premiere and FrameMaker. They are a business and that's what they are basing their decisions on.

I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but in my experience, the majority of professional graphic designers and illustrators that I know are on Mac, and I know quite a few.

Good for you! I know many that are using Windows as well and it works pretty good. I would say about 50% of the "creative" people I know are working on PCs by now... and the funny part is, that they don't encounter all the problems they are supposed to have considering what you hear from die-hard Mac-fans.

(and besides, TextEdit is so much better than Word, anyway!)

*lol*

Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...

Weird... I never had to tinker with the guts of my PCs. Well, at least not more than with the guts of my Macs... Maybe you shouldn't have tried to build a computer yourself. Sounds as if you didn't know what you were doing! ... and you still don't.

I still like the Mac better, but when I read BS like this, I really don't wonder about anything anymore...

groovebuster

 

[LethalWolfe]

When you are losing a niche market it is always because of bad management in some way... Apple lost a huge chunk of the DTP market the last few years and still is. And that is the part of the market where Apple was always strong, because they invented it.


A computer company like Apple needs to be present in all markets. Actually they build an OS and the hardware needed for it. The OS isn't specialized for anything, it is just the platform to run some specialized software. I never heard that Windows XP runs only Office apps well. That's exactly why people use it and it is still so succesful, because they know they can use it for anything (that's the theory at least). There is no benefit for Apple to be the hero of a niche market and to promote that to the potential customers.

But I think we are running in circles now... There are those who are sceptical about where Apple is going the next few years and those who claim the Titanic is unsinkable and go on partying. We'll see who's gonna be right. I don't have a problem to stand corrected when the time has come...

groovebuster

I agree that Apple does need to be present in different markets, but my point was that having a diverse product line isn't right for every company. Just like having a niche product line isn't right for every company (I'd hate to see Apple drop everything else and just focus on FCP, DVD SP, and Shake).

I guess I'm giving Apple the benifit of the doubt because they have a habit of doing the right thing before people realize they are doing the right thing. Both iMacs (although more so the original CRT iMac), FCP, OS X, the iPod, the iPod mini, iTMS, iLife, the G5. Unfortunetly being a trailerblazer means you are gonna stumble more than the trail followers and thats the case w/some of Apple's hardware right now. I'm sure they want like all hell to fit a G5 in a laptop and into an iMac but I'm also sure there are a truck load of practical and logistical problems in the way right now. Hopefully Apple's diversity ( like the iPod/iPod mini) will be able to pick up most of the slack until they can jump over those technical hurrdles and finally say "bye-bye" to Moto.

And about the running in cirlces thing... *tag*... you're it.


Lethal

 

[Mav451]

....
Yes, gaming is better on PeeCee, that's why I have one (as well as a PS2 and XBOX). For games. And to entertain myself with system updates, tinkering around inside the guts of the computer (which are visible since the thing tends to overheat and crash so I have the cover off and a desk fan blowing on it), and otherwise killing time while I wait for my real computer to come out...

Haha groove you beat me to it. This sounds like the disgruntled experience of an unsuccessful tweaker. Honestly, if you're going to build a system yourself, at least educate yourself beforehand so that your computer is not overheating (ask questions on forums--a PC forum that is )

*LethalWolfe: You make a good point about being the trailblazer. Many people have commented on how revolutionary the first iMacs were. The reason it was successful, however, was that it was at the consumer level (not the $3,000 level of the G5's). I think I was too young at the time to care about this, so I cannot really comment in detail about this, but from the impressions I am getting, if this "iMac 400 DV" success could be repeated, then maybe we'll see a bigger revival of Apple's computer sector.

 

[groovebuster]

*tag*... you're it.

... always me!!