Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
... I'd like to see Apple re-tool the symbiosis of OSX with hardware and allow other manufacturers to legally use the OS. I'd like to see Apple offer more choices in their own family of computers. I'd like to see Apple offer more options for upgrade by consumers for more products than just the Mac Pro. I'd like to see Apple lower prices across the board ...

I'll concede most of the Mac fanatics I know dislike the notion of licensing OSX to other hardware manufacturers. I understand this didn't work out too well in the past. Does that mean the approach would fail today? I don't know, but I think Anuba makes a great point:

Why would they go out of business? This isn't 1998 when the computers were all they had.

First off they have iPods, iPhones, AppleTV, iTunes Store and all the software. Steve could cease all computer manufacturing today and still be able to afford building that 24K gold, ruby encrusted palace.

Last time I checked, there are thousands of companies who live off of nothing but software sales, and doing splendidly. Apple would have those sales plus all the portable devices as well as iTunes Store, the App Store, etc.

Second, why would it diminish the value of Macs to such a degree that they lose ALL computer hardware sales? Many people will still want the real thing, the machines that were tailor made for OS X. Given the relatively high ratio of brand loyalists in the Mac camp I very much doubt they'd be looking elsewhere for the hardware... unless of course you're suggesting that prices DO matter to Mac users, despite the assurances that it's all about the priceless experience?

QFT.

If all Apple did was the OS and computers, I might pay attention to Apple Purist thinking. Sexy design with a product that just works is still a successful model. So when someone else starts designing a different sexy product that just works but costs less than Cupertino pricing, how long do you think the cash saved from iPod/iPhone sales will last? The Halo effect from the iPod and the iPhone can not last forever. So when it ebbs to the point where margins are lower than the shareholders prefer, I suspect the Board will want to re-evaluate the "priceless experience" to keep those margins profitable.

Meanwhile, what is so wrong with wanting more choices, more selection, and more options in upgrading the products Apple IS making? Mac propeller heads are in a league all our own, right? However, please don't tell me we discourage price reduction because it would lower us to some lower class (of propeller head). Are we that much of a snob? :eek:
 
…Difference: $1233

For this difference, I can deck out the Dell with stuff like...

- 12 GB RAM
- Blu-Ray
- 1 GB ATI card

...neither of which is possible on the Mac Pro.
But can you run Mac OS X? The Mac Pro sure can run any Windows OS you throw at it.

Goodbye. Good Riddance.
 
NewBie - Cinema Display A1081

I connected this monitor to my windows vista home premium. I can see the image, but I can only see 3 or 4 colors. Pink, yellow and red. Do you know what the problem might be? I have it connected to a power adapter model A1096. Please help!
 
0 CLS
10 FOR A = 1 TO 1000
20 REM Steve is recovering and nothing has changed
30 NEXT A
40 GOTO 10

Oh, what's with this BASIC, procedural nonsense? Get with the times, buddy! ;)

while (steve.stillRecovering()) {
echo "Nothing has changed.";
}
 
Oh, what's with this BASIC, procedural nonsense? Get with the times, buddy! ;)

while (steve.stillRecovering()) {
echo "Nothing has changed.";
}

Sorry, but the only programming language I know (and fairly little of it, too) is GW-BASIC. I never got that much into programming in high school, and I never got into it afterward, either.

(Psst... Don't tell anyone, but I think I'm one of those five or six MacRumors users who actually doesn't know HTML. Oh, the shame.)
 
So it seems e will not be the one releasing the next iPhone, but he will more than likely be there when a new Tablet / NetBook is released.

It seems metaphorical on his end - they don't need one man to keep doing great things, but you know what, he's still got it. It's like a message from him. Zen-y.
 
Most people with computers actually use software that is obtainable from places other than the seller of their OS.

If you're too scared to use anything that Apple doesn't approve of, then fine. Don't.

However, a lot of people would love to have alternative browsers, email and SMS handlers, Flash and Java support, useful homescreens and themes... all of which would be officially available with an open system. Heck, Slingbox would be available right now.

Nonsense. You can spin it to whatever fits your argument. You want to apply PC system to a phone system thinking its the best solution for everything else. Look at the mess the Windows, Linux system is for the average consumer. So many choices to pick from and 100 different ways to get a job done that nothing gets done. Drivers, configurations, corruptions, conflicts, it just keeps going on. And you very well know that.

The iPhone works as well as it does because there is a single entry point to a given system. As a developer, I want to create a web application just once on the platform and not have to worry about different browsers and the quirkiness that goes with each one. The PC way is just too much of a mess. Forget Java and Flash. They're horrible on the PC/Mac platform so why would we want it on the iPhone?

This is not about me being "scared" as you say to accept something Apple doesn't approve of. Exact opposite in fact. I deal with Windows in my 9-to-5 job as a systems engineer. It's refreshing to deal with the simplicity of how the iPhone is designed.

A lot of people would like alternative option for their phone as you said. But even more people would prefer it to be just the way it is... a stable platform.

As you said, we've already seen the crap that comes with a closed system.

And you think it will magically "improve" by lifting the restrictions completely? Right... Convince me. :confused:
 
I'm hoping he comes back and buys out Sun and essentially makes them Apple Enterprise. Apple needs to get ZFS working in leopard and tie that in with Sun StorageTek SANS for use with Final Cut Server + XSAN, they need native iSCSI. Xgrid + Sun Grid Engine along with Solaris Zones need to be merged into the kernel (look at Linux vserver even M$ is getting virtualization in the kernel) and no BSD chroot/jails don't compare to zones. I also wouldn't mind Apple switching from Mach to the l4.sec kernel for performance gains and merging the best parts of Solaris with OS X (Solaris scales better then OS X). Sparc engineers + PA Semi + Pagemaster would be interesting (btw Sun's top Sparc engineer is now at M$, they are up to something) Sun has a lot to offer and now that the IBM buyout fell through Apple has an opportunity to revolutionize IT and the enterprise. A buyout of Sun would get M$ trembling, Sun + Apple make a perfect fit and their technologies don't overlap so there wouldn't be any antitrust/monopoly concerns (IBM would have problems here) and no massive cuts, things would be smooth.

Finally someone who really gets it.

I just don't understand why this isn't completely beyond obvious for everyone at Apple. Apple, alone, will have a long hard struggle to make it in enterprise computing. Apple + Sun would give them instant credibility and market share. I think it would generate such a buzz that they probably wouldn't need to budget for advertising for a long time.

I can't think of two companies that would compliment each other better. Apple excels in what Sun has difficulty in, and Sun excels in areas that Apple has no traction.

A very interesting article from a few years back:

Sun Microsystems tried to acquire Apple once and then almost merged with Apple on two other occasions, according to Sun co-founder Bill Joy. Beyond these deals, the two companies almost teamed on three other projects including sharing a user interface and the SPARC architecture. The moves were cheered by Apple fan Joy, while Sun's CEO Scott McNealy appeared less impressed with some of the proposals.

All of this we learned tonight at a Computer History Museum event where Sun's four co-founders held the stage for close to two hours.

At one point during the discussion, questioner John Gage, a longtime Sun staffer, asked McNealy about Sun's "three attempts" to buy Apple. McNealy dodged the question.

Moments later, Joy – a Unix god and venture capitalist on the side – dragged the conversation back to Apple, seeming to want to make a confession.

Joy voiced an affinity for Apple's CEO Steve Jobs and said it was a "personal disappointment" that the two companies were never closer.

"There were six very close encounters," Joy said.... (more)
 
Get Over It!

A lot of people here don't seem to understand Apple. When you buy Apple, you don't just buy a computer, you buy into a philosophy. Apple has always been about control. Call them "arrogant" if you wish, but your assessment changes nothing. They launched the personal computer industry. They brought the GUI to the masses. They introduced all sorts of technologies long before the PC world caught on (3.5" floppy, CD-ROM, USB, for starters). At NeXT, Jobs created a machine that, in 1987, had multimedia email, an erasable optical drive, Ethernet, an object-oriented programming environment, and plenty more - while Microsoft was still struggling to release a stable version of Windows 3. Apple (and Jobs) have always been the innovators.

The bottom line is this: Apple doesn't care one bit about the small vocal minority of whiners who think they could be even more successful if they did X or Y. They don't care. They're too busy making money hand over fist, selling more and more machines every year, opening more and more stores, and dominating the multimedia player and smartphone markets. How long has Microsoft been trying to crack the smartphone market? How long did it take Apple to blow them out of the water? Sony should have owned the MP3 player market. Oops!

Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it. Can you find a cheaper car with better horsepower than a BMW? Sure. But it's not a BMW! All of these price comparisons and arguments over pricing make me laugh. If all you care about is price, buy Windows. No one is forcing you to pay the "Apple tax." I've used Windows enough to know that I wouldn't personally own a Windows machine if Microsoft gave it to me. OS X is worth every extra penny. I don't even think about the cost. And clearly I'm not alone.

Complain all you want, but Apple will never give you a cheap tower. It doesn't jive with their philosophy. Complain about the closed nature of the App Store all you want and, again, Apple doesn't care. They're too busy being wildly successful to worry about a few whiners. They don't hide anything. They make it very clear that the Touch OS platform is not an "open" platform and that all apps are purchased through them. You may not agree with this business model, but Apple really doesn't care. They're too busy selling apps and making software affordable and distribution simple. And what is the rest of the industry trying to do? Right, copy Apple (again).

When you buy Apple, you buy into a holistic philosophy, a vertically integrated philosophy where everything is supposed to "just work." It is a belief that computing should be simple, that computers are tools to make out lives better, not challenges to be faced, not black holes for our time. It started with the tight integration of hardware and the OS. Now they've added software distribution. If you want the anything goes, wild west of computing, buy Windows. You have a choice. But don't malign Apple for thinking different. They're never going to open the Touch platform to other stores. They're never going to allow developers to sell apps directly to consumers on the Touch platform. And they spell that out very clearly. They're always going to charge a premium for their machines and design is always going to be a key component of their strategy.

I've been a customer for 27 years and I fully expect to be one for another 27 - and beyond. I believe in their philosophy of simplicity. I don't care what it costs. The meager amount I'd save on a Windows box or the relatively minor performance increase I'd gain from buying a PC is irrelevant to me. The Apple experience is so much better. It makes my life better. And no other company has ever convinced me that they can match Apple's offerings. Never. And, clearly, I'm not alone. So, to the whiners, stop complaining. Either get on board, or buy a PC.
 
Finally someone who really gets it.

I just don't understand why this isn't completely beyond obvious for everyone at Apple. Apple, alone, will have a long hard struggle to make it in enterprise computing. Apple + Sun would give them instant credibility and market share. I think it would generate such a buzz that they probably wouldn't need to budget for advertising for a long time.

I can't think of two companies that would compliment each other better. Apple excels in what Sun has difficulty in, and Sun excels in areas that Apple has no traction.

And let's not forget another relationship. Sun and NeXT collaborated on OpenStep (ie: NEXTSTEP 4). OpenStep ran on SPARC hardware and OpenStep apps ran under Solaris. And where is OpenStep now? Right. It's called MacOS X. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has maintained a SPARC build all along.
 
But can you run Mac OS X? The Mac Pro sure can run any Windows OS you throw at it.
Yes, the MP can run OS X which is a nice added bonus. But in order to fill the shoes of the aforementioned $1200-1500 discrepancy it's gonna have to do a little better than that.
Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it. Can you find a cheaper car with better horsepower than a BMW? Sure. But it's not a BMW!
The reason why there is no such term as "BMW tax" is, people understand that a luxury car developed and assembled in Germany is more expensive to make than a mass produced Kia that's available in a dozen combinations of color + engine + equipment level. There are so many factors you can point to that justify the pricetag. Therefore a BMW is merely expensive, not overpriced. Myself I drive a VW Golf GTI assembled at the VW home factory in Wolfsburg. It cost a little more than a standard BMW 1-series due to various bells & whistles, but whatever, it was worth every penny. Does that mean I would gladly pay the same amount for a Chinese-built VW "Bora"? No frickin' way. You wanna sell me a Chinese VW, sure, here's 50 bucks.

This is why your analogy is an insult to BMW since hardware wise, a Mac is nothing more than a generic PC mass-produced in a Chinese sweatshop. The illusion of 'premium' is created by a sexy aluminium exterior which only cost marginally more than any plastic counterpart. Nobody would be yapping about Mac prices if manufacturing costs were unusually high or if they were precision-assembled in some Swiss clock factory. But they're not. And that's why "Apple tax" even became a term in the first place. How hard is this to understand?

BMW's CEO should take a trip around Mac land and pop everyone in the face who tries to borrow BMW's image to glorify fake premium products.
 
A lot of people here don't seem to understand Apple. When you buy Apple, you don't just buy a computer, you buy into a philosophy. Apple has always been about control. Call them "arrogant" if you wish, but your assessment changes nothing. They launched the personal computer industry. They brought the GUI to the masses. They introduced all sorts of technologies long before the PC world caught on (3.5" floppy, CD-ROM, USB, for starters). At NeXT, Jobs created a machine that, in 1987, had multimedia email, an erasable optical drive, Ethernet, an object-oriented programming environment, and plenty more - while Microsoft was still struggling to release a stable version of Windows 3. Apple (and Jobs) have always been the innovators.

The bottom line is this: Apple doesn't care one bit about the small vocal minority of whiners who think they could be even more successful if they did X or Y. They don't care. They're too busy making money hand over fist, selling more and more machines every year, opening more and more stores, and dominating the multimedia player and smartphone markets. How long has Microsoft been trying to crack the smartphone market? How long did it take Apple to blow them out of the water? Sony should have owned the MP3 player market. Oops!

Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it. Can you find a cheaper car with better horsepower than a BMW? Sure. But it's not a BMW! All of these price comparisons and arguments over pricing make me laugh. If all you care about is price, buy Windows. No one is forcing you to pay the "Apple tax." I've used Windows enough to know that I wouldn't personally own a Windows machine if Microsoft gave it to me. OS X is worth every extra penny. I don't even think about the cost. And clearly I'm not alone.

Complain all you want, but Apple will never give you a cheap tower. It doesn't jive with their philosophy. Complain about the closed nature of the App Store all you want and, again, Apple doesn't care. They're too busy being wildly successful to worry about a few whiners. They don't hide anything. They make it very clear that the Touch OS platform is not an "open" platform and that all apps are purchased through them. You may not agree with this business model, but Apple really doesn't care. They're too busy selling apps and making software affordable and distribution simple. And what is the rest of the industry trying to do? Right, copy Apple (again).

When you buy Apple, you buy into a holistic philosophy, a vertically integrated philosophy where everything is supposed to "just work." It is a belief that computing should be simple, that computers are tools to make out lives better, not challenges to be faced, not black holes for our time. It started with the tight integration of hardware and the OS. Now they've added software distribution. If you want the anything goes, wild west of computing, buy Windows. You have a choice. But don't malign Apple for thinking different. They're never going to open the Touch platform to other stores. They're never going to allow developers to sell apps directly to consumers on the Touch platform. And they spell that out very clearly. They're always going to charge a premium for their machines and design is always going to be a key component of their strategy.

I've been a customer for 27 years and I fully expect to be one for another 27 - and beyond. I believe in their philosophy of simplicity. I don't care what it costs. The meager amount I'd save on a Windows box or the relatively minor performance increase I'd gain from buying a PC is irrelevant to me. The Apple experience is so much better. It makes my life better. And no other company has ever convinced me that they can match Apple's offerings. Never. And, clearly, I'm not alone. So, to the whiners, stop complaining. Either get on board, or buy a PC.

post of the century. I applaud you wise sir.
 
Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it. Can you find a cheaper car with better horsepower than a BMW? Sure. But it's not a BMW! All of these price comparisons and arguments over pricing make me laugh. If all you care about is price, buy Windows. No one is forcing you to pay the "Apple tax." I've used Windows enough to know that I wouldn't personally own a Windows machine if Microsoft gave it to me. OS X is worth every extra penny. I don't even think about the cost. And clearly I'm not alone.

I would agree 100% if we were in good economic times, but alas, with the potential that our economy could be headed for its deepest recession--one that could be somewhere between the 1980-1982 recession and the Great Depression in terms of how much our economy is set back--Apple may have to pretty soon start seriously re-evaluating itself over the its own direction for the future before it suddenly realizes it burnt through that US$24 billion in cash reserves in no time flat.

I can see Apple do the following very soon:

1) It will stop opening more Apple Stores worldwide, and may close a small number of them as a cash-saving move. The store closings could happen in Europe first, where the economic situation is actually more dire because banks in Europe are vastly more leveraged than any US bank and there has been a string of major bank failures/bailouts in recent months.

2) Apple may have no choice but to get into the netbook market with a machine about the size of the Asus 1000 HE (10.1" display version), but it will use the latest Intel Atom CPU with more RAM installed (2 GB) and possibly a 240 GB 1.8" hard drive so it could run MacOS X 10.6 Snow Leopard reasonably fast; of course, it will sport a brighter, better quality display than the Acer, Asus or MSI netbooks. Such a sub-notebook will probably sell for something in the US$550 to US$600 range, a bit more than the US$400-US$500 range of current Windows-based netbooks with the 160 GB hard disk drive.

3) Apple will seriously look at building a small tower machine to replace the iMac that looks like a reduced height Mac Pro but powered by the same generation of CPU's and GPU's the iMac now uses; it will sport DVI-D and Mini DisplayPort connectors so you can use Apple's own Cinema Displays or third-party displays that will now get Apple certification for picture quality and refresh speed for displaying full motion video. Such a machine will sell in the US$800 to US$1,200 range depending on user options.

Yes, these options are rather extreme for Apple, but given the tightening world economy, Apple may not have a choice if they want to conserve cash for the future. I mean think about it: are even end users willing to pay US$2,000 for an all-in-one 24" iMac when you could possibly get a small tower machine plus Apple-certified third party 24" widescreen monitor from LG, Samsung or Viewsonic for possibly US$700 to US$800 less?

(EDIT: By the way, even BMW is hitting hard times. BMW sales levels have really crashed lately and as such BMW is concentrating on upgrading the MINI hatchback line and developing next-generation 1-Series derivatives to capture the more fiscally-frugal auto market until the economy recovers.)
 
I can see Apple do the following very soon:
I agree on all points except...

3) Apple will seriously look at building a small tower machine to replace the iMac that looks like a reduced height Mac Pro but powered by the same generation of CPU's and GPU's the iMac now uses; it will sport DVI-D and Mini DisplayPort connectors so you can use Apple's own Cinema Displays or third-party displays that will now get Apple certification for picture quality and refresh speed for displaying full motion video. Such a machine will sell in the US$800 to US$1,200 range depending on user options.

...which sounds more like a jumbo Mac Mini than a mini Mac Pro. The only reason iMac uses portable-grade CPU is the limited space and thermal headroom on the back of a flatscreen, it would make no sense in a "microtower". The should of course use the only Intel processor family they've skipped, i.e. the consumer-grade Core i7.

And yes, BMW is more vulnerable because all they have is Rolls-Royce, BMW and the Mini (the latter is in the premium supermini segment). The Volkswagen Group has it easier because they have everything from entry-level junk to the Bugatti Veyron. They can just ramp up production of Skoda, Seat and low-end VW, and take it easy with Audi, Lamborghini and Bugatti for a while.
 
A lot of people here don't seem to understand Apple ...

... The bottom line is this: Apple doesn't care one bit about the small vocal minority of whiners who think they could be even more successful if they did X or Y. They don't care. They're too busy making money hand over fist, selling more and more machines every year, opening more and more stores, and dominating the multimedia player and smartphone markets...

... Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it...

... Apple doesn't care. They're too busy being wildly successful to worry about a few whiners. They don't hide anything...

Anyone who's been awake in the past few years knows what a crock of kool-aid you're drinking, friend. The biggest counter to your Apple Apathy theme is their aggressive "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" advertising campaign. If Apple was so confident in its products and pricing, and was so oblivious to market competition and market share as you boldly suggest, it would not have aggressively maligned the PC and Vista in particular in those ads. Its confidence would have precluded the beckoning of Windows users to try the Mac. They wouldn't have even bothered with Boot Camp and all the marketing suggesting folks could run Windows on the Mac. One could argue to take your premise to the extreme and presume Apple would never have shifted to Intel processors.

No sir, there are many purist-apologists like you which seem to forget Apple is a business, albeit successful, that I think (despite rumors to the contrary) really IS influenced by consumer market share and opinion. I'm thankful they are - as I've noticed Apple RAM prices have come down to reasonable levels for consumers ... have you?

When the iPod/iPhone sales ebb to some value below which it can no longer comfortably shore up the profit margins to shareholders, I suspect Apple will disappoint folks like you. When it begins its next wave of endearing Mac commercials, they won't be targeting luxury car drivers and spoiled brat college students (Apple scored this demographic years ago). They'd be wise to target a few more groups like Soccer Moms and Gamers (the REAL ones). There are enthusiasts that would love to buy a Mac (price be damned, even) - if there were more options in upgrade other than the RAM (for the most part).

... When you buy Apple, you buy into a holistic philosophy, a vertically integrated philosophy where everything is supposed to "just work." It is a belief that computing should be simple, that computers are tools to make out lives better, not challenges to be faced, not black holes for our time. It started with the tight integration of hardware and the OS. Now they've added software distribution. If you want the anything goes, wild west of computing, buy Windows. You have a choice. But don't malign Apple for thinking different ...

I happen to agree with you here. We part ways when your resistance to change ... to "different thinking" paints you a hypocrite.

:apple:
 
How soon we forget...

Heard of any iPhone viruses lately? Oh yeah, that's right. The only iPhone malware out there is for jailbroken iPhones.

Perhaps "a lot of people" are mistaking Apple's efforts to keep the iPhone free of security issues and viruses as arrogance. It has been Apple's stated goal from the start to keep malicious software off the iPhone. Seems to me they're doing a pretty good job so far. Odd that those kinds of measures taken in the interests of their customers is labelled arrogance.

I agree with u 100%. From the beginning Apple has made it clear that performance and stabaility are even more important than how "cool" the iPhone works.

How soon. Have as forgotten how dreadful the pocketpc experience can be. Constant crashing, installing unsigned apps causing system instabilty and vulnerability, and the subsequent viruses learking, poor battery life as well causinge to purchase bulky- tumorous looking extended batteries

How can we forget the fact that no other company has shown the dedication apple has to constantly impoving the iPhone OS, keeping it secure etc!? Apple is not perfect bit they are by far better than the rest.
 
I won't waste time reading all the posts, and I certainly hope it's already been stated, but the article is complete crap. There is no news. Nothing. Zip. Nada. It's intended to yet again raise fears, uncertainity and doubt (FUD) about his health and what will happen if he leaves--after all, it says he hasn't really left. [For one thing, directors of companies do not consult with patient's doctors.] Rupert Murdoch now owns the WSJ, and it's now about as reliable as the Faaux Noise, and the National Enquirer with its stories about alien abductions. It's a paid for, planted story to impact the stock. That's it.
 
Nobody would be yapping about Mac prices if manufacturing costs were unusually high or if they were precision-assembled in some Swiss clock factory. But they're not.

++

My MacBook is a fine example of just how unlike "precision-assembled" products some Macs are. I'm surprised another small piece didn't fall off while I was typing this.
 
A lot of people here don't seem to understand Apple. When you buy Apple, you don't just buy a computer, you buy into a philosophy. Apple has always been about control. Call them "arrogant" if you wish, but your assessment changes nothing. They launched the personal computer industry. They brought the GUI to the masses. They introduced all sorts of technologies long before the PC world caught on (3.5" floppy, CD-ROM, USB, for starters). At NeXT, Jobs created a machine that, in 1987, had multimedia email, an erasable optical drive, Ethernet, an object-oriented programming environment, and plenty more - while Microsoft was still struggling to release a stable version of Windows 3. Apple (and Jobs) have always been the innovators.

The bottom line is this: Apple doesn't care one bit about the small vocal minority of whiners who think they could be even more successful if they did X or Y. They don't care. They're too busy making money hand over fist, selling more and more machines every year, opening more and more stores, and dominating the multimedia player and smartphone markets. How long has Microsoft been trying to crack the smartphone market? How long did it take Apple to blow them out of the water? Sony should have owned the MP3 player market. Oops!

Apple doesn't want to be the everyman computer any more than BMW wants to be the everyman car. Deal with it. Can you find a cheaper car with better horsepower than a BMW? Sure. But it's not a BMW! All of these price comparisons and arguments over pricing make me laugh. If all you care about is price, buy Windows. No one is forcing you to pay the "Apple tax." I've used Windows enough to know that I wouldn't personally own a Windows machine if Microsoft gave it to me. OS X is worth every extra penny. I don't even think about the cost. And clearly I'm not alone.

Complain all you want, but Apple will never give you a cheap tower. It doesn't jive with their philosophy. Complain about the closed nature of the App Store all you want and, again, Apple doesn't care. They're too busy being wildly successful to worry about a few whiners. They don't hide anything. They make it very clear that the Touch OS platform is not an "open" platform and that all apps are purchased through them. You may not agree with this business model, but Apple really doesn't care. They're too busy selling apps and making software affordable and distribution simple. And what is the rest of the industry trying to do? Right, copy Apple (again).

When you buy Apple, you buy into a holistic philosophy, a vertically integrated philosophy where everything is supposed to "just work." It is a belief that computing should be simple, that computers are tools to make out lives better, not challenges to be faced, not black holes for our time. It started with the tight integration of hardware and the OS. Now they've added software distribution. If you want the anything goes, wild west of computing, buy Windows. You have a choice. But don't malign Apple for thinking different. They're never going to open the Touch platform to other stores. They're never going to allow developers to sell apps directly to consumers on the Touch platform. And they spell that out very clearly. They're always going to charge a premium for their machines and design is always going to be a key component of their strategy.

I've been a customer for 27 years and I fully expect to be one for another 27 - and beyond. I believe in their philosophy of simplicity. I don't care what it costs. The meager amount I'd save on a Windows box or the relatively minor performance increase I'd gain from buying a PC is irrelevant to me. The Apple experience is so much better. It makes my life better. And no other company has ever convinced me that they can match Apple's offerings. Never. And, clearly, I'm not alone. So, to the whiners, stop complaining. Either get on board, or buy a PC.


Amen. You couldn't pay me enough to put up with the myriad aggravations of a msft operating system. Life is too short, and my time is worth more than the <$1/hour that the initial savings might translate into over a machine's lifetime. A windows computer is like a dime in a urinal--it's there and easily accessible, but is it really worth picking it up.
 
Anyone who's been awake in the past few years knows what a crock of kool-aid you're drinking, friend. The biggest counter to your Apple Apathy theme is their aggressive "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" advertising campaign. If Apple was so confident in its products and pricing, and was so oblivious to market competition and market share as you boldly suggest, it would not have aggressively maligned the PC and Vista in particular in those ads. Its confidence would have precluded the beckoning of Windows users to try the Mac. They wouldn't have even bothered with Boot Camp and all the marketing suggesting folks could run Windows on the Mac. One could argue to take your premise to the extreme and presume Apple would never have shifted to Intel processors.

Like I said, I've been drinking the Kool-Aid for 27 years. In that time, I've witnessed countless individuals predict Apple's demise and countless consumers post silly things to websites (and before that, newsgroups and magazine reader letters) claiming they know what's BEST for Apple. And, here we are, 27 years later. Apple has $25+ billion in the bank, no debt, and yet people STILL think they know better than Apple. Sorry, but I find it pretty darn funny!

Furthermore, aggressive marketing and switching to Intel doesn't change anything I said. What's your point? Apple is very confident in the superiority of their products. They market aggressively. They're not oblivious to market competition. They've been fighting since DAY ONE. They're a business, after all. Your comments are hardly a rebuttal of my argument. You're merely stating the obvious.

Apple isn't going to open themselves up to clones. They're NEVER going to license OS X. NEVER. They aren't going to open the Touch platform to other stores and software distribution methods. They're (probably - I'm not 100% confident on this one!) not going to release any sort of "cheap" mini-tower. Etc. No matter how hard a small vocal minority whines, these things aren't going to happen. That was my point (which you obviously missed). It has nothing to do with marketing their products, switching to Intel, etc. These are completely different topics.

No sir, there are many purist-apologists like you which seem to forget Apple is a business, albeit successful, that I think (despite rumors to the contrary) really IS influenced by consumer market share and opinion. I'm thankful they are - as I've noticed Apple RAM prices have come down to reasonable levels for consumers ... have you?

Sure, and I'm glad they've dropped. But, again, what's your point?

When the iPod/iPhone sales ebb to some value below which it can no longer comfortably shore up the profit margins to shareholders, I suspect Apple will disappoint folks like you. When it begins its next wave of endearing Mac commercials, they won't be targeting luxury car drivers and spoiled brat college students (Apple scored this demographic years ago). They'd be wise to target a few more groups like Soccer Moms and Gamers (the REAL ones). There are enthusiasts that would love to buy a Mac (price be damned, even) - if there were more options in upgrade other than the RAM (for the most part).

They don't care about these groups. How many times do they have to make it clear? Where games are concerned, it's a chicken-egg problem. Unless game developers support the platform, why would Apple build a sick gaming machine? And, so far, game developers have only moderately (at best) embraced the Mac. I'm sure that, if and when, Mac gaming gains moment, Apple will deliver a great product. But it's neither here nor there at this point. And, for the record, I find the current Apple hardware satisfactory for gaming. I'm not a hardcore gamer by any means, but this notion that Macs can't run games is ludicrous. I won't argue for a moment that more powerful gaming hardware can be had on the PC side, but if price is no object, buy a Mac Pro.

Apple isn't DULL, er DELL, or any other generic box manufacturer. They're all about design. They spend a ton of $$$ on R&D while every other PC manufacturer just slaps cheap hardware together in basically the same cases they've been using for decades. Apple is not interested in building the cheapest machine possible. They sell an EXPERIENCE. It starts with your purchase at one of their stores. Can you go into a DELL store and take free training classes? Oops, what DELL store? If something goes wrong, you can speak with someone in the US, not "Sally" in India. You can bring your machine into an Apple Store and get one-on-one assistance from someone who actually knows the products and isn't reading off a script. And if your machine requires repair, it's the most hassle-free experience I've ever had. All of this costs money.

So, my point remains. Either get on board, or shut up and buy a PC. You have a choice.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.