So you imagine the people who prefer Windows, that none of them actually have Macs or have used them? I'm sure that's true for some, maybe many, but certainly not all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs at Apple Town Hall Meeting, Google, Adobe, Next iPhone, 2010 Macs and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you imagine the people who prefer Windows, that none of them actually have Macs or have used them? I'm sure that's true for some, maybe many, but certainly not all.
Well first off, M$ is basically a software company while Apple is a hardware company. Apple doesn't even sell software really because the software is bundled with their hardware as the only way to obtain it. So the comparison in the first place is flawed.
I guess I would agree with you in saying that the two run (ran) their companies totally different, but I would cite different reasons than you have. First it appears that the post that started this was referring to the closed system and not embracing changes in technology, but I think that Microsoft has been very good at integrating the latest changes with their software. In fact, many times when new tech comes out it only works in Windows. Are there Mac USB 3.0 drivers yet? How about Blueray? Those come out very quickly in Windows. The one thing that pisses me off is the noncompetitive behavior of M$ Office with the lack of support for OpenDocument formats... But that's another issue. Not like iWork supports it either!
On the other side, I think Microsoft tends to take baby steps at a time while Apple likes to hold off on things and then make great big leaps. In that sense the two companies have very different philosophies.
Apple isn't going to have to pull Flash out of OS X
and they won't.
Once developers start coding with the iPhone/iPad in mind they will soon learn that by eliminating Flash they don't have to build TWO different websites. Just one website that works on both the iPad and the desktop. Flash use will just slowly start trailing off.
The tipping point will be when IE supports HTML5. Then there'll be nothing holding things back. As always, it's Microsoft that is slowing important progress
Once developers start coding with the iPhone/iPad in mind they will soon learn that by eliminating Flash they don't have to build TWO different websites. Just one website that works on both the iPad and the desktop. Flash use will just slowly start trailing off.
The tipping point will be when IE supports HTML5. Then there'll be nothing holding things back. As always, it's Microsoft that is slowing important progress
Yeah, there had better be good authoring tools for HTML5 before Flash can be retired. Animators aren't going to trade what's basically a video production environment for some rudimentary home built thingamabob where you animate by writing code. HTML5 also needs to be more efficient than the new Flash 10.1 player. From what I've seen so far of these "canvas" animations they're even worse than Flash <10.0 in terms of hogging resources. And that's in Safari. It was just as bad in IE, except the frame rate was so miserable that you could go on a coffee break between each redraw. I'm not keen on replacing the new Flash with something that drains the battery faster than the old Flash.
The main thing holding M$ back isn't complacency within the company, but their enormous baggage of enterprise users who would switch to Linux in a split second if M$ started moving too fast, ditching support for antiquated hardware and software etc. M$ would love to throw half of Windows in the garbage tomorrow, but they can't. It's easy to be cutting edge when the bulk of your user base is made up of consumers...
Very true. Apple has itself set up as a competitor in the consumer market.
I don't know many businesses that care about having 2gb of drivers on their office computers or having iMovie bundled
And that confuses the heck out of me! "Consumers" want to use Blu-ray. They want HDMI output. They probably don't know it, but they want Flash.
Also - to the guy that said Apple are a hardware company. Get real! Why would I want to pay a premium price for ultimately, these days - the same or actually LESS components?
You pay a premium for the operating system and the perceived value of bundled in software like iMovie, iPhoto...because they do what I want...and it just works. That's very much paying for software in my book.
Apple are going mainstream, and that is going to annoy a lot of current customers/fans! I think that's why they priced the iPad aggressively (well, aggressive for an Apple product, anyway). They realized they can make more money in this "segment" of the market.
Flash 10.1 uses 55% less memory, renders graphics 87% faster (and has hardware acceleration, but only on Windows – Adobe claims that Apple doesn't provide enough access, Apple blames Adobe – Mexican standoff).
Even without hardware acceleration, the Mac version of 10.1 is apparently much more efficient... someone at Gizmodo claimed that after installing 10.1, CPU load dropped from 450% to 190% (or 10% CPU across 16 threads) when watching Hulu videos in fullscreen. That's 60% less CPU load.
In real world terms it's probably something like this... if your MBP battery indicator says 7 hours left, and you start watching YouTube videos or some other heavy Flash content, the indicator will no longer drop to ≈3 hours left, but ≈5 hours.
That was me also. Does Apple let you buy their software for use on non-Apple hardware? No. They are a hardware company and they sell "integrated software." You can't buy a mac without OSX and you can't buy OSX (and install it without 3rd party software) without buying a Mac. All Macs are gadgets. That's what makes them cool.
What is going mainstream? I see nothing really new here. They knew that people wouldn't pay more than $500 for something with only 16gb of space. Well... I guess you'd still get some people to buy it. Also, the aggressive pricing is understandable considering how profitable the App Store is. They make more money from the App Store than they do off the device. Same idea the Video Game Console companies have. Sony and Microsoft sell their systems at a loss per console but make money off of game sales. This is why Sony, Microsoft and Apple have closed software ecosystems. You have to buy official Sony games, official Microsoft games, and you must buy your Apps from the App Store.
The tipping point will be when IE supports HTML5. Then there'll be nothing holding things back. As always, it's Microsoft that is slowing important progress…
Irrespective of when IE starts supporting HTML 5 you've still got the issue of making sure the latest version is installed. It's 2010 and we find ourselves still having to build with IE 6 in mind. It costs a large amount of resources to update companies and that's going to slow us down too.
As much as I appreciated Jobs' desire for progression of HTML standards he shouldn't forget about the here-and-now.
When Apple geeks are disappointed that a new product wasn't tailor made for them, it's usually a sign that it's a mainstream product. The idea here was to give people a quick and dirty way to surf the web, an alternative to netbooks. It is capable of supplanting the netbook for many mainstream users, although I think they'll have some trouble plugging in the card reader for their online bank.
Hey, that's fun!
No, I don't think I could do that with JavaScript. But it's a fairly esoteric application.
I don't see any real obstacles to this one. Starting from a decent library, cross-browser support shouldn't be much of an issue. I saw it a few years back so I'm working from memory (slow developing-country connection here; no patience to wait for the tiles to load in order to check carefully).
At the same time, there are many things I can do with Javascript and SVG that are an unholy pain to code in Flash. It's much easier to automate and do things in programmatic fashion when I'm not bound by the painful Flash GUI. So this argument goes both ways.
In the long run, having a far wider choice of development tools is a powerful point in favour of the open stuff.
The funny thing is that it really is "made for mac users" because Apple is leaving the window wide open for you to continue buying Apple products.
One of the big deals about netbooks is that they have been replacing laptops for a good amount of people. A lot of people only want to browse the internet and run a couple programs, so netbooks have been great!
Since Apple makes huge money on the App Store and since they make huge money on laptops... they release a device that doesn't replace the iPhone (not small enough and not a phone), uses the App Store, lets users browse the web like a netbook, but DOESN'T let them run the software that they still occasionaly need, they will still need to buy a Mac laptop!
It's genious really.
If my Dad wanted to browse the web and run only a couple Apps I could send him a $300 netbook and he'd be good to go.
If my mom wants to use macs and have a convenient little web browser and run a couple apps I have to buy her a $500 iPad and a $1000 Macbook.
Apple doesn't like to compete with people. It especially doesn't like to compete with itself.
An alternate perspective
Maybe Apple products haven't changed but rather the "Apple word" has gotten out to the masses, or maybe *some* "Apple geeks" have moved into a position where they assume all their wants (no matter how useless to the rest of us, or even to them - reference the Guardian article talking about little glass anuses) are what Apple *must* address in every product, and every v1 product must be as feature rich as the final version of that product before product end of life. And when that product doesn't do *everything* in the most interesting form factor for a price people can actually afford v1, they get pissed off. And then they usually come around and buy one of those products they have spent so much energy and time bitching about (on forums such as these).
Maybe Apple products haven't changed but rather the "Apple word" has gotten out to the masses, or maybe *some* "Apple geeks" have moved into a position where they assume all their wants (no matter how useless to the rest of us, or even to them - reference the Guardian article talking about little glass anuses) are what Apple *must* address in every product, and every v1 product must be as feature rich as the final version of that product before product end of life. And when that product doesn't do *everything* in the most interesting form factor for a price people can actually afford v1, they get pissed off. And then they usually come around and buy one of those products they have spent so much energy and time bitching about (on forums such as these).
Macs are cool! We're agreed.
But hardware vs software...Apple are BOTH. Make no mistake. iTunes is free to download on a windows machine. Apple "software" is a great way for them to control the market. They are not reliant on Mac OSX for iPhone app sales, nor iPad apps sales. This is what I mean by "mainstream".
The old Apple would sell "Both" and say "That's the advantage of having the company make both, the hardware and the software". That's why you pay a premium. On top of that...they have fantastic designs! They look cool (form factor - must have's).
So...iTunes is free and available on ANY OS. That's what they seem focused on, at whatever expense to the Mac lineup (left behind).
Just my 2c.
Yes, Apple sells software, but they are a hardware company. They produce software for bundling and selling with their hardware in order to sell more hardware. Without software, their hardware has no purpose.
I used to work for IBM and we sold POS machines into El Corte Ingles (the biggest department store chain in Spain) and IBM at end of financial year would try and get all its customers to buy hardware from them in an effort to meet corporate sales quotas. El Corte Ingles would refuse to accept any hardware in their stores that didn't have software already loaded on it, because why? Because they said they were useless bricks until they had software on them. Software makes the hardware useful. Without the software, the hardware is nothing more than an expensive (and pretty) paper weight. Apple realises this and that's why they produce software and have put so much effort into (and promotion of) ITS.
I'm just saying where they make most of their money... They don't make money off of selling OSX, it's on the hardware and the markup on the hardware. With iTunes, they don't make money on iTunes... They make money on the songs and they make money on the iPods. The availibility of iTunes just helped them gain market dominance. They get everyone to buy their music using a program that ONLY syncs with THEIR hardware. Again, the hardware is the key here. Where would Apple be now without the iPod?
But we are agreed in that they benefit from the "total package" of hardware and software.
So - if the unibody MBP was...well ugly looking, you would still be prepared to pay a premium on the hardware available elsewhere for 2/3 of the price? Wow!
And that's my point...they make both, they sell both. Therefore...they are both hardware and software.
Their software exists primarily to sell the (expensive) hardware. Much of their software has come to them through acquisitions, e.g. buying Emagic to get their hands on Logic, then quickly discontinuing the Windows version.
The software is mostly Mac-only and it's cheap. When a company that loves to charge more for hardware than anyone else sells software at suspiciously low prices, you know they're up to something fishy. After they've gotten you over the hardware price threshold, they offer you software so cheaply you can't refuse, so you get hooked on that software and now you have to stay in their fold because there are no Windows versions of that software (or the OS).
So... yes, they make software, which I guess makes them a software company, but it only exists to sell their hardware and services. You can get iTunes or MobileMe for the PC, but only because those products are portals to more sales for Apple. They offer no standalone software for other platforms, e.g. iWork or Final Cut for Windows. Well, there's Safari for Windows, it's not a hardware sales vehicle per se, but it's a kind of switcher bridge, they probably hoped the iPod halo effect would help Safari become a much more popular alternative to IE, but Firefox got in the way.
And that one statement just TOTALLY proved my point...
If it wasn't for the hardware the device wouldn't sell.
You are right, but there are two important points I want to raise. 1) their hardware is more expensive because they aren't in the commodity market and don't sell in massive volumes, and 2) their USP is all about user experience. That is what they are all about. They aren't about producing a "me-too" product. They are all about innovating and creating something special in technology that no one else does as well as them. They understand and do user experience better than most, if not all. That is their raison d'etre. And, yes, it costs more than mediocrity in commodity.
Right, but that doesn't really address my point about the cheap software. If they're in the business to sell premium products, why isn't the software also priced that way? I mean, iWork is an Office replacement for $79, it would be the biggest "me-too" product on the planet if it was available for Windows, but it's not. They're using the extreme profit margins on the hardware to subsidize the software prices. When they launched Logic 8 (or was it 9), they engaged in price dumping so blatant it makes Dell look like Rolls-Royce. They undercut competing products by hundreds of dollars and then all the Apple bozos flooded the music forums going "Logic is the most bang for buck evvarrr, HA!", apparently forgetting what they paid for the Mac itself, the giant aluminum hardware dongle that Logic is tied to. They're not pricing the software attractively to be generous.
I bet if youtube only ran on IE 8 there'd be no problem with people lagging behind with IE6. I don't see much difference in having to download a plugin vs downloading a new version of the browser. If they want the content bad enough they'll update.
The days of IE 6 are almost over. Finally.
