i read this and its just really good
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/21/resurgence_of_macintosh/
andreas
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/21/resurgence_of_macintosh/
andreas
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.
what a great mac article
- Thread starter blueflame
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Every ad in the article was for Windows. LOL!
also:
"paying more for Intel processors than they're paying now for PowerPC processors. I don't see the machines getting any cheaper."
How can that be when chips fall in price every year, get faster, lighter, smaller and use less energy?
also:
"paying more for Intel processors than they're paying now for PowerPC processors. I don't see the machines getting any cheaper."
How can that be when chips fall in price every year, get faster, lighter, smaller and use less energy?
it's so sad to see everyone regard the Switch campaign as a failure. I mean it was, but it didn't have to be. Apple just didn't try. Think they secretly wanted it to fail. But now they won't do it again, at least for a while (Apple also had some Switch-esque videos made in the mid 90s) which is a shame.
I think the end of the article is the most important part. If anything is going to win converts to the Mac platform, it's the "media convergence" thing.
Look, Steve's played this very well. Rebuild the brand name around iPods. Sell people music via iTMS. Introduce video iPod. Sell videos via iTMS.
Over the next five to ten years, the next step will be the convergence of increased broadband speed, TV moving to a downloadable paradigm, and computers hooked up to media centers in the home.
If Steve continues in this direction, the "halo" effect will continue to increase Mac market share, albeit slowly.
However. Once a lot of people are operating under this kind of system, owning media centers and downloading TV shows to their computers...and assuming iTMS will still have the kind of dominance it enjoys now...then and only then will Steve really be in the catbird seat. I can see Steve setting up the situation so that Windows and the Mac OS are a true two-tier system.
For example, say iTunes has the exclusive rights to certain popular shows (as it does now with Lost). All Steve has to do is tweak either iTunes or the Mac OS itself so that there is a certain feature set in the download -- trailers, commentary, whatever -- which work only on the Mac OS, not Windows.
Realistically, Apple would probably have to offer that feature set to both platforms...but I can see a system where the features come to Windows six months to a year after they're available on the Mac. That just might be what drives more computer users to look seriously into buying a Mac. And with the "Ooooh, but it's not Intel!" fear gone, it should be an easier decision for a lot of people.
And by that time, "media convergence" on the Mac should extend not just to the iMac, but also to things like a really souped-up Mac mini, for people who worry (as the article said) about the built-in screen issue.
I don't know, maybe I'm just blowing smoke, but I see this as a plausible way for Apple to go.
Look, Steve's played this very well. Rebuild the brand name around iPods. Sell people music via iTMS. Introduce video iPod. Sell videos via iTMS.
Over the next five to ten years, the next step will be the convergence of increased broadband speed, TV moving to a downloadable paradigm, and computers hooked up to media centers in the home.
If Steve continues in this direction, the "halo" effect will continue to increase Mac market share, albeit slowly.
However. Once a lot of people are operating under this kind of system, owning media centers and downloading TV shows to their computers...and assuming iTMS will still have the kind of dominance it enjoys now...then and only then will Steve really be in the catbird seat. I can see Steve setting up the situation so that Windows and the Mac OS are a true two-tier system.
For example, say iTunes has the exclusive rights to certain popular shows (as it does now with Lost). All Steve has to do is tweak either iTunes or the Mac OS itself so that there is a certain feature set in the download -- trailers, commentary, whatever -- which work only on the Mac OS, not Windows.
Realistically, Apple would probably have to offer that feature set to both platforms...but I can see a system where the features come to Windows six months to a year after they're available on the Mac. That just might be what drives more computer users to look seriously into buying a Mac. And with the "Ooooh, but it's not Intel!" fear gone, it should be an easier decision for a lot of people.
And by that time, "media convergence" on the Mac should extend not just to the iMac, but also to things like a really souped-up Mac mini, for people who worry (as the article said) about the built-in screen issue.
I don't know, maybe I'm just blowing smoke, but I see this as a plausible way for Apple to go.
I can see the tagline:
"The computing power you need. The TV content you want. Only on Macintosh."
I also think it won't be the iTunes MUSIC store much longer. I think something has to give as it's not 100% music now....
"The computing power you need. The TV content you want. Only on Macintosh."
I also think it won't be the iTunes MUSIC store much longer. I think something has to give as it's not 100% music now....
Thomas Veil said:
I can agree with most of the article, I disagree with their assessment of the Halo Effect though.
The iPod has been well received for a long time now, and continues to be the innovator and leader in its field.
A good experience with a single product from a company usually means that people are willing to consider other products from that company.
Apple was not a brand name that was constantly in the news or public awareness before the iPod came along. Apple was, but there was a gap, that the iPod bridged. Since the advent of the iPod, Apple has been receiving a vast amount of public attention. Since people are more conscious of Apple than they have been for a while, Apple is there when people consider which computer to purchase next.
This is not to say that Apple has not done great things with the iMac, iBook, and Power Mac lineups, just that they were not getting any attention despite being great products. The PB needs a new level of processor to match where the other lines have gotten to. Not entirely Apples fault, it's actually to Apples credit that they took this into consideration and were able to move to Intel, when it became necessary.
The iMac, in particular, is an underachiever. The new all in one design will more than likely become the industry standard for a long time to come. It is the most efficient design for modern computers which will eventually rely on LCD screens solely in the near future.
Despite all of this. The iPod is the product that has captured the attention of the general public, and I bet it is the product that most people would first think of when asked about what they think of Apple.
The iPod brings people into Apple stores, and introduces them to the rest of Apples lineup.
It may not be an easily quantifiable idea, but there is a definite trend in Apples success and the success of the iPod.
Apart from that, I like the article, but I fail to see how they cannot see the benefits that the iPod has brought to Apple.
iTunes is also highly underrated. It is, bar none, the best interface for music available on computers, especially considering the price, and the rate of innovation.
The iPod has been well received for a long time now, and continues to be the innovator and leader in its field.
A good experience with a single product from a company usually means that people are willing to consider other products from that company.
Apple was not a brand name that was constantly in the news or public awareness before the iPod came along. Apple was, but there was a gap, that the iPod bridged. Since the advent of the iPod, Apple has been receiving a vast amount of public attention. Since people are more conscious of Apple than they have been for a while, Apple is there when people consider which computer to purchase next.
This is not to say that Apple has not done great things with the iMac, iBook, and Power Mac lineups, just that they were not getting any attention despite being great products. The PB needs a new level of processor to match where the other lines have gotten to. Not entirely Apples fault, it's actually to Apples credit that they took this into consideration and were able to move to Intel, when it became necessary.
The iMac, in particular, is an underachiever. The new all in one design will more than likely become the industry standard for a long time to come. It is the most efficient design for modern computers which will eventually rely on LCD screens solely in the near future.
Despite all of this. The iPod is the product that has captured the attention of the general public, and I bet it is the product that most people would first think of when asked about what they think of Apple.
The iPod brings people into Apple stores, and introduces them to the rest of Apples lineup.
It may not be an easily quantifiable idea, but there is a definite trend in Apples success and the success of the iPod.
Apart from that, I like the article, but I fail to see how they cannot see the benefits that the iPod has brought to Apple.
iTunes is also highly underrated. It is, bar none, the best interface for music available on computers, especially considering the price, and the rate of innovation.
Does the author think that HP paying Apple to re-brand was because the quality of the product had no impact on the rest of the line?
HP bought into the iPod because they saw the inherent value in being associated with such a good idea. It brought attention to their products through association.
The author did not even offer a better explanation to the Halo Effect. Other than what is already known, but only to a small segment of the market. Apple computers are better, but people just don't know why, or have more immediate needs that prevent them from switching.
I think he needs to rethink his position. The good will developed through quality product development will pay off in the long run.
HP bought into the iPod because they saw the inherent value in being associated with such a good idea. It brought attention to their products through association.
The author did not even offer a better explanation to the Halo Effect. Other than what is already known, but only to a small segment of the market. Apple computers are better, but people just don't know why, or have more immediate needs that prevent them from switching.
I think he needs to rethink his position. The good will developed through quality product development will pay off in the long run.