If you ignore the global economy, the magnitude of the sub-$1000 PC market relative to the $1000+ PC market, and the fact that you can run Windows on an Apple PC, then this article makes sense. Otherwise...
The article makes even more sense if you ignore hardware geeks, PC gaming enthusiasts and case modders. I don't see tons of teenage gamers lining up to buy new motherboards and 3 PCIx graphics cards for their Mac Pro.
I'm exactly the same way as jonny_noog here. I grew up case modding, going to lan parties, winning fastest-pc-build competitions and all of that. Then I went to college and got a Mac mini a year into it after seeing some friends with Macs. then I got a Macbook, then an iMac, then a MBP, then the new MBP, then the MB Air, then the new MBP... now I'm a big Mac guy.
So you fell into the social pressure aspect of Apple's Marketing technique? I thought of getting a Mac for college, however for the price it doesn't offer much over a Lenovo or a Dell. You get alot of nice touches, but those things I'd never use. Multi-touch trackpad? Unibody? There are products out there that do those things much better, such as tablets and toughbooks. Mac is like a DND bard, jack of all trades master of none, and not even better than a master of one. They're nice, they're shiny, but you want toughness? Get a toughbook. You want battery life? Get a Lenovo t400. You want something light that you can surf the web with? Netbook.
If you want to impress your friends about how much better your purchase is, then get a Mac.
No my point is that Mac is a computer and is subject to the same shit that other computers are subject to, so if "this crap just works" stops working on a PC it will also stop working on a Mac. Mac's suffer hardware issues and software issues as well, however the perceived notion is that they don't.
You said Macs only sell because of marketing but don't have features to justify price. But you named all the features Macs contain in one package and said it takes multiple PCs to get the same features. So I argue that they do justify the price.
Whether those features appeal to you personally is yet another argument, but Apple knows thier target customer appreciates those features and will pay for them all in one computer.
And yes, Macs also break. Although they're rated at the top in customer-service and repair every year.
Not exactly, I named specific types of computers that excelled at delivering the features of the Mac. I called d Mac a jack of all trades.
Although they're rated at the top in customer-service and repair every year.
Depends how you rate it, in fact I'm not surprised at this rating because Apple makes a business out of it more than any manufacturer Not only that but for some things they don't even service things, such as iPods. iPods/iPhones are the most disposable piece of hardware never considering they just throw out the "broken" one and give you a new one. Some people would call that service, I call that waste. I will concede they have a great service plan, give customer under warranty a new one, repair old one and sell it for a smaller profit as a refurb.
"They're nice, they're shiny, but you want toughness? Get a toughbook. You want battery life? Get a Lenovo t400. You want something light that you can surf the web with? Netbook."
At the time I wanted none of those.. I just wanted something small that could run OS X (this was before OS x86 and hackintosh obviously) as I thought it was a cool OS and had previously only used OS8-9 and not much OS X in high school. As for "social pressure aspect of Apple's Marketing technique", I guess you could pile me into that group but in a different way. Most of my friends were hardcore linux types, and some just happened to have Macs as their weapon of choice.
I could go on, but I don't feel like starting a huge Mac v PC war again. I'm happy with my decision and that's all I care about. :) As for why I use a Mac now in 2009, well I do lots of Rails and design stuff and there are just so many great, small Mac apps that help out with this.
I don't get hardcore linux types who go for Mac. Mac ports is pretty bad for porting things over, and there's problems with version handling. There are some nightmare development stories on the Mac such that programs don't compile because it's impossible to easily get specific dependencies.
Mac isn't Linux with a "more polished" interface, it's a closed system with the stability of *NIX but none of the benefits of decent package management, and a less developed system interface.
Not sure how hardcore I am, but I would definitely consider myself a "linux type". I take your point about the lack of a decent package management system. I run Debian on my ThinkPad so I know what a good package management system looks like. I also take your point about Macs being a more closed system.
But for me, being a web developer who doesn't do much in the way of kernel hacking or other deeper system type work, OS X really is effectively Linux (or Unix as the case may be) with a more polished interface. I would never have considered getting a Mac if OS X was not based on Unix.
I am much happier with a combination of OS X on my desktop (used for work plus multimedia entertainment) and Debian on my laptop (used for work) than I was with Windows on my desktop and Debian on my laptop.
The problem for me is that OSX isn't linux. As a power user, I do some pretty in-depth stuff that requires the proc file system. Not only that but Mac drivers behave differently than linux ones in terms of the Unix philosophy. And Mac doesn't support more hardware than Linux even though it's a commercial operating system.
Example: I have a Hauppage HVR 1600 TV tuner with on board MPEG-TS transcoder. What linux allows me to do using the character device /dev/video0 either through netcat or through SSH stream the device across the network to another computer, effectively creating an MPEG stream of live TV. I can change channels using V4L2 architecture.
Thus when I'm in college my friends can record shows through my computer through the network onto their laptops (obviously the same channel at a time) simply by tapping the stream.
And because Mac doesn't have a great package management system you probably spend more time than you should upgrading libraries you use (depending on your setup obviously, I've never used Rails so I don't know what goes into that but PHP could be a bear).
Personally I like the expose feature of Mac and I was upset that it took either retarded compiz or a half broken hack to get it working on Linux. Then kwin came along, which does all of what finder does and more. And I will give Mac props for inventing that because it's one of the most useful window management techniques (I find taskbars outdated), but when I look at their system I can see that while I get stable polish, I get overall less features, turning it off, then turning it on kills plasma rendering properly).
But in terms of raw features that are really nice and extensible albeit crashy, commercial OSes, Mac included are always behind. (I mean seriously no one has addressed dependencies and dynamic library management like Linux has.)
I completely understand where you're coming from and totally agree that for the kind of stuff you're talking about, Linux is the definitely the go.
Open source web dev tools are great on the Mac though. I get by just fine using Ruby Gems for all my Ruby/Rails package management needs (the Ruby Gems system actually makes sense on OS X where as on Debian, it just felt redundant at best and annoying at worst) and I prefer to compile Ruby, MySQL, PHP, Git etc. myself in /usr/local anyway. I feel like I've got more control of where everything goes that way. When it comes to using these kinds of open source tools, I very much prefer to have a Unix style terminal to work in rather than what passes for a terminal in Windows.
I'll never totally give up Debian for OS X, but if it's a choice between Windows and OS X for my general work/entertainment machine, I'll choose OS X.
That's where you see Apple's design prowess. Tough, decent battery life, good performance, thin and light, decent screen size and resolution and graphics card, nice keyboard, in one package. PC laptops tend to emphasize one of these, not too good in the others. Like the classic Slashdot post on the iPod, just comparing one specific feature or the other ignores the trade offs that good design is all about.
If what counts is that they're well rounded why do they give you the ability to customize to be less rounded, ie, 17" Inch MBP which is supposed to be a workstation replacement?
Out of what you mentioned: Tough, decent battery life, good performance, thin and light, decent screen size and resolution and graphics card, nice keyboard, in one package.
A t400 does the same, it's arguably as tough as a MBP, it's got better battery life (compare 10.5 hours vs Apple's advertised 7), the t400 is already thin and light, but the t400s takes it a bit further(albiet costing battery), screen size and resolution is the same even with LED, and switchable graphics are on all high-end laptops. Keyboard just depends on what you like anyway. Not to mention, with a Mac your portability and serviceability for your machine is greatly affected, ie, I can hibernate most modern PC's and change the battery while you can't. I can replace the battery when it dies and you can't without voiding warranty. You can't replace ram, keyboard, or anything without Apple service or risking a void warranty.
t400 looks like a nicely designed computer. Replacing RAM on a Mac laptop does not void the warranty, and now replacing the HD is pretty easy, too (compared to the older MacBook Pro I have, which requires disassembling almost the entire thing). The advertised battery life has a wide range on Lenovo's site, and I could not figure out which system with which battery had which battery life, and how much weight is affected with bigger batteries. (Note on one of the batteries mentions that it sticks out the back of the computer.)
So I take back the implication that the t400 is not well designed. ThinkPads have a good reputation for hardware design, which I assume is well earned (have not owned one myself). The same cannot be said for all PC laptops. And software is a whole other matter altogether, of course.
As for customization, Apple deliberately restricts the options for customization relative to other vendors. They definitely have an attitude of designing a few models that fit the needs of a many customers, as opposed to many models each appealing to smaller, more specific groups.
It does, look at the installed ram and the sticker on it.
As for the theory that of many fits one, fact I feel that that is false. I could have bought my college's laptop which is gaurenteed to fit everyone, but I found it wasteful. Yeah the tech specs are better than the laptop I bought but it wasn't good for me, not enough mobility, too big, useless features such as the high end processor that isn't worth the cash tradeoff, etc. I don't need that. Customization is good, example Apple's displays aren't changeable to a higher resolution. That pisses me off 15.4 inch laptops should be able to handle 1680x1080.
1. The sticker is on RAM the person is INSTALLING, not the installed RAM (as the previous poster already said).
2. The sticker refers to ITSELF, not the RAM module. I've seen it on numerous third-party computer components, including RAM and hard drives. It contains information on the date and location of manufacture, and the manufacturer of the part needs that information to track consumer-discovered flaws.
Were Apple to put a removal notice for the RAM component itself, it would attach to both the RAM stick and the motherboard, so that removal would be evident.
3. Apple specifically states that HD and RAM upgrades may be done by consumers without violating warranty.
That story you link to is not proof. If you look closely, that sticker you mention is on the RAM the author is ADDING to the MacBook Pro, not on the existing RAM module. (Notice the existing RAM module is blue, and the 3rd party one is green, and the green one is the one with the sticker)
I have a new MacBook Pro (the SD card one) and it has instructions in the manual IT CAME WITH on how to replace the RAM and hard drive. Apple wouldn't give you explicit instructions to void the warranty. Replacing RAM or hard drive does NOT void the warranty.
There's probably lots of reasons why the over $1000 PC gaming market is in decline.
There are the people that just grow out of it (I am one). But the big factor here is that consoles are taking over gaming. It used to be the fact that PCs were way better for gaming than any console, but now that consoles have caught up, PC gaming is becoming a niche. (BTW, I now have a PS3 which is gathering dust, as I just don't have the time to play it)
Microsoft does deserve some credit here, as they do have a big stake in the console market with the XBox.
I have no time for games any more either, I stopped playing games frequently about the same time I stopped buying UV reactive IDE cables and blue LED fans.
But I think it also depends on what kind of games you're into. For me first person shooters are best played with mouse and keyboard where as fighting games (like Street Fighter) or sandbox-style action games (like Prototype) are best played with a controller. I know you can interchange your interface devices these days, but I find myself still thinking, FPS? I want to play that on a PC, or sand-box style action game? I want to play that on a console.
I think a lot of people who buy Macs are the opposite of hardware geeks and case modders. I bought my MBP because I got tired of dealing with hardware, picking out parts, etc. I just wanted a nicely designed and built computer that let me do what I wanted (in my case, programming).
To me, having to deal with hardware just gets in the way of letting me do what I want, which I feel many people can relate to.
Specs don't matter like the used to. 6/7+ years ago an upgrade or a better performing machine was actually a big deal even for regular users. These days it's almost the opposite. Components perform at such a high level that consumers are willing to buy worse-performing machines because the experience just isn't any different.
When I was going through grade school, I heard such bullshit rumors about Mac computers, such as "They're really popular in Europe." Which not only is ignorant of computers, but ignorant of socio-economics of the average European who has much less expendable income than the average American. For them buying a computer that was priced at 1.5-2.0x that of a PC at the time would have been improbable.
The magnitude of the $1000+ PC market in terms of # of widgets sold, or in terms of revenue?
In case you were not aware, Apple's market cap is higher than Dell and HP combined who together sell over 50% of the domestic units in the US, which is Apple's strongest market.
Businesses are ultimately formed to create revenue and profit, not shift widgets. Microsoft has apparently taken their eyes off this fact after 2 decades of easily collected fat profits, but monopolies can be lost if you sit fat and happy on them.
People often talk about Apple's "market share" in terms of widgets, but how often do you hear the media talk about Apple's "market share" of the total revenue in the computer market? I've never heard it mentioned once* in decades of following the computer industry. Profit is what matters, not widgets.
*by mentioned once I mean the main stream media, I've heard it mentioned on Mac blogs. But I've never seen the media show a break down of the exact % of the profit Apple pulls out of the computer industry. I'd love to see one.
