Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Isn't this what Apple is doing wrong in regards to OS X?

pdjudd said:
It's one of the things that suck. There are many many things that caused me to embrace OSX at home and to downgrade my computer at work back to XP.
Click to expand...
Agreed... well almost.

As an IT person, I would downgrade immediately. In fact I would have just stayed with XP.

However, Vista is great if you have a good machine. Vista sure has its quarks but I still use Vista. I love OS X though!:D

As for solemody....have you even used Vista? Have you used it enough to gather your OWN opinion.

Come on... your just a Mac fanboy.
 
MacDawg said:
The reason Apple does this is so that they can integrate the software with the hardware so it "just works". You don't have the inconsistencies and random driver issues, etc. you do with the Windows world. The software and the hardware solution works seamlessly and you don't have to support all the 3rd parties. It is a closed system and a philosophical choice Apple made.
Click to expand...
They still have problems! They should be much, much better than PCs, but are much the same in reality. They do not just work - Apple make faulty kit, have iffy suppliers and do recalls, most of the people I know who have Apple kit have had faults. An Apple fan on the GUardian newpaper admitted that all the Apple kit in his house had had faults of some kind in one article - he's a big Mac fan BTW.

My most reliable computer so far has been a very well travelled Sony Vaio Laptop. My Feb 08 MacPro has been back to store on numerous occasions and was even made worse by the 'Genius' who wasn't so smart after all.
OSX Leopard has had 5 major updates times in just over a year and the numerous bug fixes have solved some of the problems I've been having, such as video graphics issues, so Apple's strategy doesn't actually work after all. There was a problem with the previous MacBook Pro and graphics too.
 
pdjudd said:
Microsoft is taking the "we don't care about your inconvenience" approach to things.
Click to expand...
What they are becoming more like Apple! :eek:
I want a pro laptop that can run my expensive firewire audio card and can be also used for graphics editing. Except Firewire was dropped with no replacement and glossy screens are great for putting your lipstick on, but are crap otherwise. Unless you are a troll who lives in the dark! :p
 
Slowstick said:
As an IT person, I would downgrade immediately. In fact I would have just stayed with XP.
Click to expand...
I work in IT, I was testing Vista at work.

However, Vista is great if you have a good machine. Vista sure has its quarks but I still use Vista. I love OS X though!:D
Click to expand...
Anything will run well to a certain degree if you have a good system. I have no doubt that is the case.

My gripes were not abut its performance, but rather the complete inability to do what I needed it to do. Far too many incompatibilities, networking issues galore, visual "enhancements" which were not, etc. It was unusable.
 
iMac-Knight said:
and as far as I can see, its greatly better than PC's hardware.
Click to expand...

Totally untrue. It's identical to PC hardware. And it's certainly not any more reliable, better built, or higher QC.

"Don’t neglect your customers’ most important need: a better price."

This is why OSX is 10% market share, not more. When your cheapest laptop is twice the price of a typically cheap PC laptop, you're going to turn away most of your potential customers.

Doug
 
djellison said:
Totally untrue. It's identical to PC hardware. And it's certainly not any more reliable, better built, or higher QC.

"Don’t neglect your customers’ most important need: a better price."

This is why OSX is 10% market share, not more. When your cheapest laptop is twice the price of a typically cheap PC laptop, you're going to turn away most of your potential customers.

Doug
Click to expand...
Not only price, but availability.

However, some might argue that the most important need is quality not price.
 
ajpl said:
They still have problems! They should be much, much better than PCs, but are much the same in reality. They do not just work - Apple make faulty kit, have iffy suppliers and do recalls, most of the people I know who have Apple kit have had faults. An Apple fan on the GUardian newpaper admitted that all the Apple kit in his house had had faults of some kind in one article - he's a big Mac fan BTW.

My most reliable computer so far has been a very well travelled Sony Vaio Laptop. My Feb 08 MacPro has been back to store on numerous occasions and was even made worse by the 'Genius' who wasn't so smart after all.
OSX Leopard has had 5 major updates times in just over a year and the numerous bug fixes have solved some of the problems I've been having, such as video graphics issues, so Apple's strategy doesn't actually work after all. There was a problem with the previous MacBook Pro and graphics too.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the problems you or your friends are having, but Apple continues to get high regards in customer satisfaction over other computer makers, and furthermore, the vertical relationship between hardware and software is the model, but that doesn't mean that the hardware can't be faulty. I've watched Dell laptops burst into flame on YouTube and I've personally dealt with dead PSUs, hard-drives, faulty memory, cracking motherboards and a whole host of other issues with your average PC, plus the weird niggling little software issues of Windows.

Remember, your personal situation is an anecdote, not data. As human beings we often see patterns where they don't exist.


djellison said:
Totally untrue. It's identical to PC hardware. And it's certainly not any more reliable, better built, or higher QC.

"Don’t neglect your customers’ most important need: a better price."

This is why OSX is 10% market share, not more. When your cheapest laptop is twice the price of a typically cheap PC laptop, you're going to turn away most of your potential customers.

Doug
Click to expand...

I'd argue that "better price" is not necessarily the customer's most important need. For instance, if I have an engineer who is paid $200 per hour and will work for 100 hours on a system, is it worth an extra $1000 to make sure he can work that entire period without a problem? Or, say I have to ship a piece of gear to someplace foreign and I need to pay $500 to do so, should I take the chance on cheap gear, wasting money and time if it fails, or should I just pony up for the good stuff?

Simply put: fast, cheap, good. Pick any two.
 
djellison said:
This is why OSX is 10% market share, not more. When your cheapest laptop is twice the price of a typically cheap PC laptop, you're going to turn away most of your potential customers.
Click to expand...
And yet Mac's market share in increasing lately. So, it seems that there is an increasingly larger amount of people who are not just looking at bottom-line price. They are turning towards and not away.
 
dejo said:
And yet Mac's market share in increasing lately. So, it seems that there is an increasingly larger amount of people who are not just looking at bottom-line price. They are turning towards and not away.
Click to expand...

Well....yes...but 10%? That's not much.
 
People don't buy Vista on purpose...it just happens to come installed on their computer. Most people don't think that operating systems are a choice.
 
NT1440 said:
I thought u where saying Apple was doing something wrong??:confused:

Wouldnt gaining marketshare be doing it right?
Click to expand...

No... I agree with you. It is good that they are gaining market share. Its still low though. Thats what I am saying.:)
 
Slowstick said:
No... I agree with you. It is good that they are gaining market share. Its still low though. Thats what I am saying.:)
Click to expand...

Apple is not out to get the kind of market share that Microsoft has any more than BMW is trying to get the market-share that Ford or Toyota has. Most cars on the market are just as powerful or more than BMW's cars are and yet people don't clamor for an inexpensive BMW or clamor for BMW to reduce their prices to that of Toyota.
 
pdjudd said:
Apple is not out to get the kind of market share that Microsoft has any more than BMW is trying to get the market-share that Ford or Toyota has. Most cars on the market are just as powerful or more than BMW's cars are and yet people don't clamor for an inexpensive BMW or clamor for BMW to reduce their prices to that of Toyota.
Click to expand...
Wow... beautifully put. That was one of the best comparisons I have ever heard and I 100% agree. Besides, there is a reason why Apple changed their name from Apple Computer to Apple Inc. Its because Macs arent their biggest market or their biggest money maker. They make a damn good OS though.:D
 
Slowstick said:
Well....yes...but 10%? That's not much.
Click to expand...

NT1440 said:
I thought u where saying Apple was doing something wrong??:confused:

Wouldnt gaining marketshare be doing it right?
Click to expand...

Moving from >3% to ~10% since 2004 or so is an increase that any company could be proud of. What's interesting is how Apple did it while maintaining high margins and—as all reports indicate—high customer satisfaction.

pdjudd said:
Apple is not out to get the kind of market share that Microsoft has any more than BMW is trying to get the market-share that Ford or Toyota has. Most cars on the market are just as powerful or more than BMW's cars are and yet people don't clamor for an inexpensive BMW or clamor for BMW to reduce their prices to that of Toyota.
Click to expand...

The BMW comparison is often made and I think it's apt. Not everyone should want or attempt to become GM, instead there's money to be made in surviving and thriving in smaller niche industries.

I think Apple's better off working on a limited set of products and services, focusing their efforts and attention. Counter this to Microsoft who, like GM, seems intent on moving into every market heedlessly and are thus in competition with just about everyone: from Logitech for peripherials, Nintendo for game consoles; Apple on the OS front; Apple, RIM, and Symbian for cellphones; Mozilla for the browser; and Google nearly everywhere else.

Microsoft is beset on all sides because they're competing everywhere. It's impressive that they've done as well as they have, and I drop my hat to their success with the XBox, but what about the Zune? Or Windows Mobile? Or the other dozens of services that have failed against a smaller, faster competitor?
 
Eidorian said:
I don't know many people that would buy a prebuilt computer without an operating system. ;)
Click to expand...

It's a little like getting a car without wheels.

Although, I wouldn't really notice since I usually just reformat the HD and install everything from the network, giving me a nice clean and consistent copy of Windows and the software my people need.
 
pdjudd said:
I doubt that the judge can override the fundamental ownership of Windows to make it open source since the court case did not deal with ownership of Windows. THere is no doubt that Microsoft owns it. The case dealt with MS's business methods which could rule that Microsoft be split up.

That is aside to the point that I do think that MS got off easy. The judge more or less said, "Your guilty but we can't do anything since you are so big and necessary"
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, he couldn't order it. But at some point in the proceedings, the judge was presiding over the negotiations of what to do next. There was talk, probably just among the chattering class and not among the principals, that something like this might make sense.

mt
 
pdjudd said:
Apple is not out to get the kind of market share that Microsoft has any more than BMW is trying to get the market-share that Ford or Toyota has. Most cars on the market are just as powerful or more than BMW's cars are and yet people don't clamor for an inexpensive BMW or clamor for BMW to reduce their prices to that of Toyota.
Click to expand...

Thats because BMW's are generally made with much higher quality parts and are engineered to be more comfortable to drive and more responsive on the road. Macs are made with he same parts as other computers, only they have been blessed by steve jobs so people think they are something spectacular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back