Apple's Device Model Beats the PC Way 445
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Walt Mossberg argues in the Wall Street Journal that Apple's model for PCs and devices is beating Microsoft's. In early battles for dominance of the PC market, Microsoft's component-based platform crushed Apple's end-to-end model, he says. But in today's post-PC era, where the focus is on music players, game consoles and cellphones, the end-to-end model is the early winner. From the column: 'Even the Mac isn't as closed as its critics charge. It's still designed to work with Apple's own operating system and software. But it can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice. The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows. Heck, the newest Macs can even run Windows itself.'"
History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: I'd have to disagree with the above, based on the following observation:
I believe we're seeing an evolution of PCs and electronic devices that closely parallels the evolution of the electric motor. When electric motors were first available to the public, it was in a general-purpose, component model. You could buy an electric motor, and it would normally come with different belts or chains allowing you to attach them to a wide variety of other devices. Nowadays, electric motors are much more within the end-to-end model, in which they are made for a specific task and embedded in the end product.
Computing devices seem to be following that same general curve...becoming more specialized, embedded, and specific-to-task (one example: console games vs. gaming PCs). Given this inexorable movement away from the general-purpose to the application-specific, I'd have to guess that the end-to-end model will be excercising progressively more dominance in the market as time passes.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a good book, and probably worth reading again now to see how his predictions are going.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Interesting)
But a PC is intended and designed to be as general-use as possible. The very concept of software is to enable the device to perform functions that were not contemplated at the time of manufacturing. To the extent that the PC is modular, it fills that role better, because increasing the functionality beyond the design conception is cheaper and easier. Perhaps some people would be willing to give up the flexibility of a PC in favor of something like a game console: slicker, better at doing what it was intended to do, but limited to its designed functionality. But I think many people are attracted by the open-ended nature of possibilities created by a general-purpose PC.
Missing the change... (Score:5, Interesting)
1985, Apple's offering is about $4000, the IBM offering is ONLY $3000... A few years later, Apple's offering remains about $3500, IBM compatibles are $2000...
Now, remember we have 20+ years of inflation... That $4000 machine from Apple is like spending $10,000 in today's dollars ($8000 from inflation, another $2000 from income increases)
For a while, the price differential was huge.
Now? The "Apple is expensive" crowd is sounding increasingly absurd. The Mac Mini is like $500-$700, the Dell is $400-$600... Sure there is a price differential, but it's now small. $100-$200 difference is NOTHING compared to the $1500 ($3000-$3500 in today's dollards) difference.
A family today often has two computers, maybe more. My Apple
Five years ago, the idea of a central home computer with WinTerms seemed like a possible future. Now, why bother, the workstations are basically free. We don't have modular systems, we have digital hubs...
10 years ago I went to college with a computer containing: a motherboard, CPU, RAM, graphics card, 3D acceleration card, ethernet card, SCSI card, sound card, 2-3 hard drives, CD-ROM, CD-Recorder, etc....
Now, I use a MacBook Pro, but it wouldn't matter if I had a PC... I'd have a machine with a keywork, mouse, monitor, and box. Upgrades? Everything is on-board, USB/Firewire peripherals add my expansion. Do I need to upgrade a video card? Why bother, when you can get an entire computer for $400-$600 why do I need replacable parts? Only on laptops where a $2k-$3k replacement cost may matter do I even think about how nice it would be for a speed up.
Computers are cheap and disposable.
Alex
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:2)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:2)
Re:Modularity was because things broke easy (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason PCs were so modular back in the day is because A.) They were expensive and sometimes you didn't need to buy everything and B.) Cheaper an
Re:Modularity was because things broke easy (Score:5, Funny)
I won't not fail to come back and not read this post when I don't have less time on my hands to not figure out what it doesn't say.
Or something.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's just what they said about the general purpose electric motor. That's the whole point of the analogy.
As an extreme example, take Word Processing and Spreadsheet use. You may think that the same general purpose computer is best adapted to both tasks. But it's not:
Word processing on a PC is compromised because the screen is the wrong shape to fit a representation of a piece of paper on. A portrait orientation would work better. Yet for spreadsheets, landscape is better.
Likewise the keyboard is not optimised for either task. Instead of anonymous but general purpose buttons market F1-F12, and relatively arbitrary control and alt key combinations, which vary from application to application, there should be buttons marked perhaps BOLD, CENTER, STYLE etc. on the word processor and ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE or SUM on the spreadsheet.
Who knows, perhaps the spreadsheet would be better with different pointing scrolling controls. Perhaps a trackball purely for scrolling.
Perhaps the word processor should have a scanner/ocr built in. Because it doesn't need anything more than a cheap embedded CPU and no fancy 3D graphics it could have extras like that and still be a fraction of the price of a general purpose PC.
BTW, don't argue with any of the specific suggestions here. They're out of my hat and for demonstration purposes only. The point is that looking at each application separately, hardware can be designed to support a specific problem far better than the general purpose machine can. Those optimal designs would certainly be different from my examples.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:2)
There seems to be a similar parallel in software and operating systems. My beloved Linux (and Unix in general) took the component model from the beginning. Making little programs that do little things very well, strapping them together and doing clever things. Then Microsoft came along with Windows which seems to employ the end-to-end model. Especially with the upcoming Vista which has a version of the OS for each type of user (a brillaint econo
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
In contrast, x86 machines were built from modular components. If you wanted to, you could order different components from vendors and assemble the machine yourself. More common, though, you would pay someone else to assemble the components for you. Gateway, Dell, HP, whoever you picked, they could get the same components as every other manufacturer, and put them together, then ship it to you. You got a fully functional system, but since it wasn't proprietary you could easily swap out parts, and the competition in who was providing these pieces meant lower prices and (sometimes) better performance.
Now move to the software analogy. With Windows, Microsoft builds a bunch of pieces that they assemble into an operating system. They sell it in several different styles, and you can pick which one you want; but the pieces they use to make those systems are not available to anybody else. Another company cannot just come in, buy the parts, and assemble a version of Windows to sell to you. It's a closed market.
Linux, on the other hand, is nearly identical to the x86 market. The system is composed of a bunch of pieces that fit together in standardized ways. Many different people or groups have taken a stab at building versions of these components, though. You can take kernels patched and tweaked in any of thousands of different ways, different device systems, different GUIs, etc, and assemble them into a functional system. Individuals can do this themselves, but more often they will get a full package from some company that has taken these widely available pieces and assembled them.
The situations are parallel to a striking degree. And the results are nearly the same as well. Apple makes computers in which all the parts work together. You don't have to worry about the CPU overheating and frying the motherboard. All the parts are quality controlled, and while they may not be the very best on the market, you know the system is going to Just Work (tm). Windows is the same. You can't swap out the chron manager or the system logger if you want different functionality, but you also know that one piece of the OS isn't going to eat the rest of it. With Linux, you have a huge range of choice in which components you assemble, but that comes with the added risk that some available components are much lower quality than others, and some may be incompatible with each other; exactly the same way with assembling x86 components yourself.
In the end, who won? Well, it's not a perfect parallel, but it seems that in the long run, interchangeable parts and systems with more options won out. It took companies who would hide that abstraction from the user to do it, but Linux is getting there. Fedora, Suse, Linspire, etc are all catching on more and more, and as people start to realize that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows", they'll continue to do so.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:3, Interesting)
Now compare this to a computer. External devices used to be directly ch
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:2)
It's all just software, there's no physical restriction which confines you to the "end-to-end" model. Apple's Good User Experience and Apple's Closed DRM Format are mutually exclusive I
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:2)
This is an excellent point.
"In fact Apple is going with a closed format because they know that UE can't sell forever and eventually there's going to be "good enough" alternatives eventually."
On this point, I disagree. I think that there will pretty much always be an opportunity for UE to sell... Granted, if the hardware stayed the same, then UE would evolve to a certain level that was "good enough". However, I'd argue that inn
WinXP on Apple HW has grass roots excitement (Score:2, Insightful)
You are. We live in a world where one sometimes needs or wants a Windows app. Emulation can be slow (PPC emulating x86), file compatibility can be spotty,
After decades of Mac zealotry ?!? Even MS's own employees have a thing called Mini Microsoft http://mi [blogspot.com]
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about replacing OS X, so much as it is supplementing your Mac-using experience by letting you have easy access to your old Windows stuff. And for long-time Mac users, it's about getting access to the (very few) Windows applications that don't have a Mac version or equivale
I am SHOCKED! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
post PC era? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:post PC era? (Score:2)
What? (Score:3, Informative)
What? Then please explain the following:
http://television.aol.com/in2tv/
http://www.movielink.com/ [movielink.com]
http://www.vongo.com/ [vongo.com]
There are still quite a few things on the Internet you can not do with a Mac. Leopard, if it includes built in virtulization, can't get here fast enough.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
As a slashdot user, I'm disappointed you didn't go on a rabid rant about how DRM is evil and will destroy everything we've ever worked for.
Re:What? (Score:2)
WMP isn't developed for Mac anymore, thus the DRM wouldn't work.
Maybe I misunderstood your complaint, but you should bitch to media companied that require DRM rather than whine about Macs being incompatible. In this case, the incompatibility saved your ass from supporting DRM!
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not complaining or whining, he's refuting a claim that "everything works the same," and proving by counterexample that the claim is false. "Why" it's false or "whose fault it is" are irrelevant.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
he's refuting a claim that "everything works the same,"
Define: straw man
"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"
The actual claim was:
"The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows."
Think of it this way:
"The Yugo gives you the same access to the highway system as Porsche."
Pragmatically true. But nobody would claim that "everything works the same".
Re:What? (Score:2)
The number of online movie purchasers however is a number so low that it is a statistical abberation, and thus does not in fact provide an effective counterexample.
I would warrant that number of people who have bought the single movie on ITMS (that disney high school movie) is greater than the entire customer base of the services mentioned, combined.
Since ITMS is the
Re:What? (Score:2)
Mossberg is "high class" infotainment. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mossberg is "high class" infotainment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mossberg is a technologist for the common (business) man. He writes about technology from the perspective of a normal person (what we might call 'user').
There is nothing overly provacative over this particular theory, except that it is probably wrong. In new fields, integrated, proprietary technology usually gets the headstart because it can innovate faster (not having to worry about standards and such). But eventually, as the new field matures, innovation slows and the advantages of standardization and commoditization catch up. Here [itconversations.com] is an excellent talk by Clayton Christensen at the 2004 Open Source Business Conference. It is really an excellent talk. Christensen may not be 100% right, but he is at least mostly right, and has some great insights and stories.
Apple is kicking butt right now because they developed an awesome family of music players that while proprietary, are not overly so, decent software for managing said devices (iTunes is great at some things, sucky at others, but overall is pretty decent), and the first sane online music store (and kudos to them for their successful negotiations with the record labels). It's excellence of execution more than a winning business model. Plus, the industry's perceived need for some sort of DRM, which will let Apple sustain it's closed system for awhile.
If we ever get past the DRM BS (hah!), we'd at some point be able to buy music from store A and play it on player B. At that point, Apple will lose margin in both markets (stores and players) due to increased competition (right now they are exploiting the oft-talked about but rarely observed concept of 'synergy').
Re:Mossberg is "high class" infotainment. (Score:2)
Now, that is just hilarious!
Re:Mossberg is "high class" infotainment. (Score:2)
Maybe that's all there is to it, but I generally thought Mossberg stayed within his area of competence, I.E. end-user product reviews. Maybe I haven't been reading him long enough. This is a muddled folk-lorish rant going nowhere.
For one thing there is no mention of standards, open or otherwise. Both Apple devices and PCs use many of the sa
Bah Humbug! (Score:2)
Re:Bah Humbug! (Score:2)
I Like Components... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know diddly about Apple. Can someone tell me how upgradable the typical Mac is? If I want to uprade the memory, cpu, hard drives, optical drives, gfx, etc., how easy is it to do this, and what's the longevity of the parts? How do prices compare between Apple and PC for these parts?
Re:I Like Components... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I Like Components... (Score:2)
The rest of the machines (iMac, Mac Mini, the laptops) are approximately as upgradeable as a PC laptop, which is to say not all that much. Hard drive and ram can be replaced, of cour
Minor correction (Score:2)
The Powerbook G4s have a PC Card slot. The Macbook Pros have an ExpressCard/34 slot.
~Philly
Re:Minor correction (Score:2)
It's actually a CardBus slot.
Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:5, Insightful)
You end up paying one way or another. How many of us have found/been given a part (a 28.8 modem in my case, when the 14.4 was king) and spend hours getting it to work? I suppose if you don't value your time at all, your argument makes sense. But more often than not, you can either 1) buy a quality component that Just Works but costs a lot, or 2) "shop around" and "minimize expense" (at the register) and spend a few days tweaking it to work, costing you time with your wife/girlfriend/kids/dog.
My roommate, for example, bought an MB/CPU combo from Fry's along with the rest of the components necessary for a working computer. By all accounts, the thing should be cranking away, but Windows won't get through setup. For the heck of it I tried installing an old version of RH I had lying around, no luck there either. Long story short, he's wasted TONS of his own time and countless hours of mine all in the name of saving a few bucks.
By the way, the 17" Powerbook that's on my desk -- picked it up about 5 months ago. Never crashes. Installed a bluetooth KB & mouse without having to reboot(!). Running an external monitor, and it remembers that if I have my second monitor hooked up, I want the LCD's rez to be lower, but if I don't have that second monitor hooked up, I want full rez on the LCD. Point being -- the stuff just works.
I don't know diddly about Apple...
Maybe if you spent less time shopping around you'd have time to relax and read about Apple or some other tech that interests you? (BTW plenty of good resources to answer your questions above on the web).
Re:Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:2, Interesting)
And btw...your friend tried to save a few bucks by purchasing everything at Frys? Good lord! Do you buy your discount clothes at Macys too? My friend priced out
And savings often comes later... (Score:3, Interesting)
I probabl
Re:Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:2)
You enjoy having to muck with stuff? I.e., you'd prefer a system that forced you to muck with stuff to a system that allowed you to work with stuff but didn't require it?
I think it's fun to tinker, too, but I'd prefer to have a system where the stuff I care less about tinkering with Just Works, leaving more time to timker with the stuff I ca
Re:Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:5, Funny)
What is the deal with this fear of the Mac mini?
Hard-core overclocking freaks, who think nothing of sinking an entire $1500 game PC into a bath of cooking oil as a solution to keep the processor cool at 112% of the reccommended clock speed, are suddenly terrified of using a putty knife to back a few soft plastic clips on the CASE of a $600 computer.
"Woah! d00d, I heard a rumor on Slashdot that Apple might void your warranty if you even add memory to it! Better just put it up on a pedistal and never even look directly at it, or it might a'splode! I'll call a Certified tech to get this keyboard plugged in."
All I can do is shake my head in disgust.
Re:Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:3, Interesting)
More than half of the PCs I've owned in my life required tools to open.
I reject your claim that "Apple intentionally didn't make it easy" to open, because I own one and can tell you first hand, that it's incredibly fucking easy to open. A small child could do it.
You slide a putty knife in on one side to bend back a few of the clips, pull it open a little bit. D
Re:Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:3, Informative)
If you're not familar with the hardware, go to the Apple store and see for yourself what it looks like.
Or better yet, ask actual Mac owners, who have actually made upgrades to their Macs yet still enjoyed full coverage on the rest of their Macs. I'm one of them. I upgraded both the memory and the hard drive on my mini. Zero problems carting it up to a "Genius Bar" and getting supported.
Never stick a putty knife into a computer. I can't believe someone woul
Re:I Like Components... (Score:2, Funny)
Really? I find the soldering work to be a bitch.
Re:I Like Components... (Score:3, Informative)
The new Intel Macs are regular PCs. Within the limits of the form-factor, they are just as upgradable as a PC. For example, you can pop out the CPU on an iMac and stick in whatever Core Duo chip you want. You can't upgrade the motherboards on the current set of Intel M
Re:I Like Components... (Score:2)
yes.
On a PowerMac, it's about as easy as on any given PC. Same components, too.
Re:I Like Components... (Score:3, Informative)
Last, but not least, the original (single) 867 MHz G4 CPU has been replaced with a dual 1.6 GHz G4 setup. The CPU upgrade required a firmware change and a screwdriver (to remove the heat
When you are the minority player in the market... (Score:4, Insightful)
Software is the reverse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Software is the reverse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Software is the reverse (Score:3, Informative)
From the user interface, Apple does not provide any way to remove or replace [Dashboard|Finder|Spotlight|Dock]. Yes, there's hacks to change these things, but similar things exist on Windows as well. All of this is very tightly integrated from the User's POV and not "removeable and replaceable".
On a technical level [Dashboard|Finder|Spotlight|Safari|Dock] are very integrated into system libraries and share a lot of code. Just li
Re:Software is the reverse (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the last point not withstanding, Apple has a history of building applications for very focused tasks. You browse and open files with the Finder. You browse the internet with Safari. You send e-mail with Mail. You organize your life with iCal. You mana
Uh... HTF is that a bazaar? (Score:2)
Re:Software is the reverse (Score:4, Informative)
Dear God Man!
If Raymond read that, he would die, bury himself & start spinning.
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (as ESR is a nutcase & I won't link to his new book). Both Apple & MS follow cathedral models - what you're thinking of is a unixy 'lots of useful little bits you can string together' vs 'big monoloithic and single use' models.
Can Network With Windows Machines (Score:2, Interesting)
This is my only complaint about macs in a PC dominated world. It's a struggle to get AD working properly. Once this is a simple point and click wizard I'll be thrilled!
Macs can network; Windows boxes can't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Macs can network; Windows boxes can't. (Score:2)
Re:Macs can network; Windows boxes can't. (Score:2)
You're either trolling, or there is something very wrong with your network or your nfs setups. I can easily fully saturate the network cards using nfs. For me, nfs is faster than any tcp socket, including samba.
Re:Macs can network; Windows boxes can't. (Score:2)
Including NFS, too? (Were using NFS-over-UDP or NFS-over-TCP?)
Re:Can Network With Windows Machines (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea because getting Active Directory and a Mac is so easy to do...
This is my only complaint about macs in a PC dominated world. It's a struggle to get AD working properly. Once this is a simple point and click wizard I'll be thrilled!
Well, as other have pointed out AD is a properiety technology. On the other hand if the network admins knows what they are doing, then Macs can easily be supported. Truth is LDAP is actually supported by the AD Server, but a number of admins never bother to activate it. Simi
Re:Can Network With Windows Machines (Score:2)
You learned spelling and grammar from tenured teachers, right? Because I'd say that your left is pretty stupid as well.
The article submitter... (Score:4, Informative)
This for an article published on the WSJ web site.
I think that about says it all.
---
This anonymous post was brought to you by the image-protected password "profuse"
Re:The article submitter... (Score:4, Insightful)
This for an article published on the WSJ web site.
I think that about says it all.
What exactly does it say? It says that someone working at the Wall Street Journal was one of the first people to know that article was live and knew it would be interesting to Slashdot. (If it wasn't interesting it wouldn't have gotten posted, right? If there was posting-payola involved they wouldn't have made it so obviously submitted by the newspaper, would they?)
That someone from the WSJ would submit their articles isn't surprising is it? Slashdot has been around for quite a few years now and its original mainstream claim to fame was its large audience(Slashdot effect). There might be a hint of impropriety if the submitter had hidden their identity, but as it is, what's the problem?
convert (Score:3, Interesting)
I am so impressed with the way os x works. it is fast, accessible (through the bsd subsystem) and i can do anything on my ibook than i can on my desktop (no i dont game). After my experiences running a mac, i will never buy another non-mac pc. even if that means that i have to wait to save more money, they last longer and run better than windows machines.
Re:convert (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:convert (Score:2)
Re:convert (Score:2)
I couldnt put it better. Your G3 ibook will still fetch a 400-500 on ebay if you ever wanted to sell it.
Re:convert (Score:2)
Statements like this are so off the wall, they really tell you nothing more than "I've Drank the Kook-Aid!!" The reality is that the vast majority of 3Ghz PC users would find an old G3 iBook to be unacceptably sluggish and difficult to use.
Apple May Not Win... (Score:2, Interesting)
Video and the Wii (Score:2)
But what about the Games!? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see any third parties being given access to the Mac's core to provide alternative end-to-end device solutions. Their end-to-end model is nothing more than Plug-n-Play when it comes to third partys.
My critisizm... Where are the games? [ugo.com]
One of the biggest reasons new PCs are purchased as well as all of the new componants for the PCs are the games. Video games can be directly attributed to the reason computers are getting pushed faster and faster in the consumer market. Up until vista, the non gaming user would never need a 128Mb DX10 graphics card. People don't need a PPU to use Excel. Heck, even laptops have been hovering at 1.7Ghz for the last 3 years!
Apple has yet to get the support of the gaming development companies. Sure there are a few games getting released now and then, usually months or years after the general PC/Console release.
Has Apple even attempted to get into this market?
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been a PC gamer for years and it has been the primary reason that a Mac usually sits to the side of my windows machine, and not in front of it. As I have gotten older and my free time is more and more sparse, I tend to enjoy less and less video games and more and more console games as I can jump on and off and enjoy.
The only game I have played on a computer in the last year is World of Warcraft, which now plays nicely on my MacBook Pro.
The rest of my entertainment from video games consists of an occasional round of Fight Night 3 on my xbox 360 or some hack'n'slash with Oblivion (again on the 360) or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (again on the 360).
My gaming career was on the PC, never gave the consoles much credit as I could build a PC to do much better graphics and seemed to have more fun online playing games.
But , other than my occasional WoW binges, who wants to be cramped in a corner of the house huddled behind a PC when you can spend that time hanging with your kids playing fun games behind a 65" high-def TV with graphics that match what I am seeing on my PC, without any compromise of playing online with other people (via. xbox live for example).
To get to the point of my rant, that's the biggest reason my Mac is now a viable computer for me.. not the interoperability, but more the fact I don't really game on my PC any longer.
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:2)
Apple tried to make Mac OS more attractive for game developers, back when it was still Mac OS and not Mac OS X. There was a set of libraries called Game Sprockets [apple.com] to help game developers with things like controller support and 3d sound, but the project was killed in the switch to Mac OS X. Right now there things like OpenGL that can be used for games, but nothing specialized for games.
Big companies like Blizzard can afford to have a small Mac unit, and some companies actual
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:2)
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? Please cite some references.
No, only the most popular ones. (Score:2)
The computers are components (Score:3, Insightful)
The end product now is a system of interconnected devices.
Computer, phone, stereo, television, DVR, camera, video, IPod, game system, internet. These are the components of the new system. You would buy slightly different versions of each one to customize your complete system, but you don't worry about customizing each component. You only worry how the component will work with all of your other components.
Apple wins hands down on integrating into this newer interconnected system.
--Keith
Re:The computers are components (Score:2)
Well, I won't say I hated it... if I trully hated it I wouldn't have done it. I remember at one point I had a Pro Audio Spectrium 8bit which offered semi-decent audio but for some reason I needed to upgrade to 16bit. Righto... onwards and upwards to the PAS 3D which was not fully supported in win95 though having a really nice digitizer. Same deal with some obscure 14.4 Mwave non
Sync with devices (Score:2)
What do PCs have that is close to that?
Ultimately, Apple only needs a solid minority... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's stop making this a Apple v. Microsoft fight, because it hasn't realistically been one for a while.
USB != "Windows" device (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:USB != "Windows" device (Score:2, Informative)
THAT MADE NO SENSE!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the Mac isn't as closed as its critics charge. It's still designed to work with Apple's own operating system and software. But it can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice.
In order for the Mac stuff to be interoperable it must have the ability to be used on other systems, not vise-versa. Can any of Apple's OSX apps run on anything else besides a Mac. Can you use music you pur
It's a QA issue (Score:2)
It's not an end-to-end model. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now let's apply this. I have a PowerBook that is very reliable. I also have a desktop that's very reliable (in fact, 3). However, these desktops are component-based machines; they run Linux. How is it that these component-based macchines are as reliable as my end-to-end model PowerBook? I bought components which aren't garbage. AMD CPUs, Kingston lifetime warranty RAM, Enermax power supplies, etc. It's more expensive than what most people probably buy, but I've never had a peap of trouble. I know what components to buy because I take the time to look into it, and because I only buy components that the Linux kernel supports (which, for some reason, happen to me more reliable than random Taiwanese garbage).
With Apple's model, we skip this step. Apple themselves takes the time to try and get quality components that work reliable with OS X. Since they vend the machine and the hardware, they can't hide behind the "Windows sucks" excuse the way cheaper component suppliers can. However, and this is important to note, they're still interested in shrinking costs as much as possible to maintain their fat margins, and they still like to charge a high markup. Plus, they're not immune from mistakes (note the GOBS of heatsink goo on the heatpipes of the 15" MacBook Pros). This means they don't always do as good a job as someone who knows what I do.
Really, it's just moving the burden of choosing chocolates from shit from the consumer up the chain a bit, but even then it's not perfect. If you want thinks done right, do it yourself -- learn about PC construction, or pay someone you trust (be it Apple or your friend). If you just go buy the cheapest thing you can, you're on a roller-coaster ride to the bottom in terms of quality and consistency -- that's why Wal-mart's stuff is different (they have different product badged the same to cut costs), and also why Wal-mart is not always the best place to shop.
Adam Smith's invisible hand requires you to do research!
The market has changed (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, you're not going to be upgrading your economy PC from Dell or HP anyway. If something faster comes out, you just buy a new PC because they're $500. Apple is now in this price sphere though, and the Mac mini looks sexy and small compared to a $500 Dell in a mid-tower case. Home PCs are commodity hardware, and this fits Apple's business model a whole lot better. Who cares if it's expandable if you're just going to replace it anyway?
The Mac mini is Apple's $500 box, and when you compare it spec wise to a comparably priced Dell or HP, it stands up. Of course, a $500 Dell comes bundled with Google Desktop and MusicMatch Jukebox, and the Mac comes with the whole iApp suite, which is more powerful and easier to use for a home user than anything even available on Windows.
Which would you choose? The $500 Dell or the $550 Mac Mini?
Apple gave up the end-to-end model (Score:3, Interesting)
So how is this a good example of an end-to-end model?
How is that closed? (Score:4, Insightful)
From The Blues Brothers: "We have both kinds o' music here—country and western!"
Re:Clear dominance... (Score:2)
Re:Clear dominance... (Score:2)
That said, it is pretty ironic that a "personal computer" manufacturer's top selling product isn't a "personal computer".
But then again, your response of 80% market share was regarding the iPod which was not the "market" that was being referred to.
Re:Apple is just another PC maker (Score:2)
What, you want a list? I don't think slashdot allows comments that long.
BTW, I don't even own a mac right now. Last one I had was a Rev A bondi blue G3, which was a festering piece of shit. OSX still rules though.
Re:Apple is just another PC maker (Score:2)
Incidentally, I don't really like this market tying. Monopolies aren't allowed to do it because it's harmful and distorts the market, I don't see any reason
Re:macs are great (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really ? (Score:2)
Re:whatever... (Score:3, Informative)
And until you are willing to pay money for quality software and hardware, you aren't in Apple's target market. While Apple has had a few quality issues, like any manufacturer in any industry, overall their quality is pretty high. The hardware lasts. My old 6500, in t
Busted (Score:4, Insightful)
Accusing someone of corruption is a pretty easy path to take when you lack the intellect to come up with real counterarguments.
Re:Actual Email sent to Walt Mossberg (Score:3, Insightful)
That must be it. Of course, there's absolutely no other reason he'd stop reading or responsding to your emails; I mean since you're the only guy who writes to the Mailbag and you're not annoying or combative. I guess that's why nobody hires int