[Martian]

Biallystock said:

You must be a born again Mac user.

Apple can have all the business plans it wants.

Hey, even I've got one and guess what?

The customer, not Apple, features at the top of the list.

Can you suggest a different business plan for Apple that could generate sufficient cash to maintain R&D and support for the Mac OS?

Remember, Mac OS must remain better than Windows to survive, and must support necessary R&D with only 1/10-1/20 the unit sales of Windows. Without sufficient R&D, “The customer”, including you and me, would be running Windows instead. If Mac?s were merely just as good as Windows PC?s, most of us would take the easy, universally compatible way out and buy PC?s

[alphanoir]

It's apparent that most of you folks are young. You don't remember what happened the last time Apple let the clones loose. Only a a few companies had anything of high quality, and the result of all the clones out there was disastrous to Apple in terms of finance and product stability. Remember, Apple is not a JUST a software company like M$. It's the complete package.

[decondo]

I remember the clones. I don't think they had anything to do with Apple's troubles at the time. Apple had lost its direction and focus probably due to a disastrous succession of CEO's culminating with the man (who would be king) from Nat Semi. I honestly thought Apple was a gonner until Jobs returned. iMac and OS X put Apple back on track and now Apple is on a huge roll. Who really believes that Psystar or 20 Psystars could do anything to derail Apple's 10+ years of success.
A robust Apple is not a weak sister in need of careful nurturing and teetering on the verge of colapse. I have no interest in clones, particularly as long as Apple succeeds in providing acceptable product which meets my needs and requirements. I don't even know anyone who knows anyone interested in a Pystar box.
I believe in the spirit of competition and the benefit of competition to the consumer. I think it is extremely bad press for a large corporation to go after a tiny competitor. It's an unsavory distraction during an exciting time of iPhone 2 and other impending releases.
Also, Apple is a corporation, not family or your best friend or deserving (or needing) of your charity or loyalty. Apple offers competitive product and services and will continue to get my business on that basis alone. I realize I am not important to Apple, but my purchases of Apple product are. That is the nature of our relationship - their compelling product, my willingness to give them my money.

[Biallystock]

I also remember the clones. I still have one.

Apple lost badly against the clones because it was a lumbering and incompetent, overstaffed, self indulgent bureaucracy with no direction. The idea of the clones was to make it compete. Unfortunately when it became obvious that Apple couldn't, Jobs pulled the plug on the clones and set about turning around Apple with an iron fist instead. The era of "The Terror" began apocryphally with a lift firing. After that no-one in Apple wanted to get in a lift with him or to cross him. Steve's word, inconsistent or not, is now law.

Apple is now in a very good position as a result of Steve Jobs' tough management. He has shown that when it comes to new product areas that Apple dominates like the iPod he learnt from the bad mistakes of the 1980s. Those were complacency and draining the blood of a limited customer base with extortionate pricing which drove them away whilst giving the competitors time to catch up. Steve has lately rapidly responded to changes in the iPod's market with both prices and products to stay on top.

It would be very difficult for a clone maker to gut Apple today. But Apple has still exploited its captive market for Macs, by lagging with price updates and hardware upgrades. It has also ignored persistent customer requests for alternate form factors ie the midi headless Mac.

When iMacs became extremely popular in the graphics industry because of the enormous price hike to the next best, but not much better, Mac Pros, Apple went back to its old habit of manipulating the product to force its customers onto products Apple wanted to sell but the customer did not want to buy. That is they changed the non-glossy screens on the iMacs.

There is a very funny video doing the rounds of YouTube which has Steve Jobs introducing the highly dangerous and unstable iRack against the wishes of both his staff and his shareholders. The skit really hits the spot because it compares Steve Jobs' unwillingness to listen to George W. Bush's equal affliction.

After the iRack starts catching fire, after he shoves too much "stuff" into it, he reacts to the panicking audience by saying "I hear what you are saying and the answer is NO !" and loudly declares we need to pile even more stuff on the iRack.

Then whilst the building becomes engulfed in flames and smoke he proceeds to divert their attention to the "newest" product the iRan.

Now there are some very obvious product changes and innovation that Apple could make, but that is not the Apple way. The Apple way is to lean on the ever loyal customers, who it has persuaded have a "special" relationship with the company, to just put up with whatever Apple decides is good for them.

Apple really believes that what is good for Apple is always good for their customers. Too many of their customers also think that. If the customer stood up for their own interests more they wouldn't need to grumble so much, because Apple would not take them for granted and Apple would give them models and features better tailored to their needs.

[vulpine]

Apple didn't lose because it was lumbering, though I will agree with the incompetence of the bean-counter CEOs vs the product-savvy Steve Jobs, pushed out when he disagreed with the Apple Computers, Inc. board of directors on direction. What happened there was already after Microsoft had gained a huge foothold by letting anyone license Dos who wanted to build to it, more than 5 years earlier. By the time Apple permitted clones, rather than increasing the Mac OS's growth, it merely sapped Apple's already small hardware share; guaranteeing failure.

Yes, he uses tough management, but the secrecy he enforces within the company means that he is usually first at making a certain technology a desirable thing. Note I don't say he invents them, but rather makes them standard equipment and something people want; often after other companies have dismissed them as inconsequential. One of the only exceptions to this might be their multi-touch technology for control. While touch-screens are old hat, it wasn't exactly useful just pressing a virtual button. By making multi-touch a dynamic process able to use two or more contacts simultaneously, he's made the technology a desired thing.

Since you claim to remember the clones, then you will also remember that Apple back then was releasing new models every three months or so touting increased capabilities one way or another. As such, a customer didn't know whether to buy now or wait a little longer for a more significant jump at the same price. By slowing down its release rate and making these jumps bigger, people have a better idea of what they're buying and tend to make their decisions more quickly.

Also note that your comment about iMacs vs "midi-headless Macs," while perhaps valid, is also too short-sighted. Apple realized (and I concur whole-heartedly) that the diffusion layer of an LCD's screen actually created more glare than polished glass. The only exception to this might be where there's a window at the operator's back. The glossy screen is brighter and easier to read than the 20" Viewsonic diffused screen sitting right next to it. it also allows the user to upgrade computer and monitor in one step at one price, usually cheaper than doing the same with individual CPU and display components. In other words, buying an iMac gets you computer and monitor for the price of an exactly-equivalent Windows PC alone!

I know about the video of which you mention. And yes, it is very funny as a spoof of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches. But Steve Apple designs its computers for its market. Like anyone else, it has its failures, i.e.the Cube, among others. However, it also has its successes as demonstrated by the fact that Gateway, Dell and HP have each designed a computer to compete directly with the iMac, up to and including the built-in monitor. HP has even included a touch screen on theirs, though not multi-touch. I might note that polished glass is also easier to clean in this circumstance.

In other words, Apple knows that it lives only by its customer's sufferance. If they make the customer happy, they continue to make more sales and new customers. If they disappoint and upset their customers, they lose on both. Considering Apple's market share is rising and Windows is slipping, who is making their customers happy?

[Biallystock]

Apple was only releasing an enormous number (of not very different) models because it didn't have a clue what the customers wanted and that is the standard response, sell all the prototypes and see if any take.

Unfortunately they were nearly all crap, slow and bombed a lot. They also cost way more than PCs with an additional huge financial burden on the customer of expensive and limited peripherals.

Apple was indeed lumbering. The models it released were chronically too little too late. The clones beat them to everything first. That is what competition is. Apple was the fat guy who when at last being made to run after years of sofa squating, just sat on the bench and refused to play.

The glossy screen is a graphic designer's disaster and is certainly not better to read in normal lighting conditions.

The nipple mouse is also an expensive and mediocre product, after years of crap mice. The new flat aluminium keyboard is excellent but for the reasons I mentioned above Apple insists on rearranging the customary keys on the wired version and entirely removing many of them on the wireless version.

It is always this insistence that you can't just have the best product, you have to put up with pointless handicaps on otherwise good products, that gets me fed up to the back teeth. Leopard is a good example of this, a few good steps forward accompanied by a string of annoying steps backwards.

[Swift2]

Biallystock said:

I also remember the clones. I still have one.

Quote

When iMacs became extremely popular in the graphics industry because of the enormous price hike to the next best, but not much better, Mac Pros, Apple went back to its old habit of manipulating the product to force its customers onto products Apple wanted to sell but the customer did not want to buy. That is they changed the non-glossy screens on the iMacs.

It's quite clear that you understand nothing about business, and that if anyone is the "cultist" here, it's you.

Apple introduced glossy screens because they're more popular in the industry. In fact, try to find a non-glossy screen now; it's possible, but non-trivial. They give more contrast, and a deeper black.

Mac Pros are incredibly fast, production-oriented machines. You can get an 8-core Pro, with the capacity to have 2 terabytes of storage internally, plus a superfast interface to a Raid array and the latest in graphics cards. Try putting that on an iMac.

iMacs are very popular everywhere, and they're fast enough to be quite sufficient for many uses short of production video uses and the like. Put a similarly-equipped Dell up against it, and the Mac Pro is cheaper. PLUS, you can use a fully-supported copy of OS X on it. The next iteration, which will be developed at great cost in R&D -- where's Dell's R&D, by the way? -- will be called Snow Leopard, and will be, if successful, the first OS able to fully use a multicore environment, among many other promised advances. That costs money. That takes a core group of very smart developers, who don't work for free, nor should they.

It's appalling how some people think they can just spout nonsense.

[Biallystock]

vulpine said:

Considering Apple's market share is rising and Windows is slipping, who is making their customers happy?

Since Linux's share is also rising I think it is a case of Microsoft is pissing off its users to the point they are jumping ship, much as many more Mac users did back in the '80s and '90s.

[Biallystock]

Swift2 said:

Apple introduced glossy screens because they're more popular in the industry. In fact, try to find a non-glossy screen now; it's possible, but non-trivial. They give more contrast, and a deeper black.

They are not more popular in the industry, and are rubbish for any pre-press or video work, they are so color inaccurate.

I posted all over in various forums and no professionals would recommend them. In fact they suggested the Mac Pros simply because you could attach the Apple or DELL non glossy monitors to them. But at a considerable cost.

Why hasn't Apple converted all its Pro Displays to glossy?

Because that would only appeal to amateurs, who won't pay for them.

[Grapho]

You are aware that you can connect a second display to an iMac, right?

[Biallystock]

Yes but the max resolution is restricted to that of the iMac which is usually not a match for the secondary monitor. Users have also complained of not being able to color balance them.

Further problems arise when you push a glossy monitor aside, the reflections get worse, or persistently turn your head to work on a 2nd monitor.

Which all beggars the question of why must the user, who already has paid for a monitor, buy a 2nd and possibly unsuitable monitor just to fix the problem created by Apple.

Let the customer choose.

Is that such a difficult principle?

NB The 23" Apple display costs approximately 50%* of the cost of a new iMac 24" and is the best match to its resolution. There are a number of users complaining of quality control on the Apple Store website. I am also uncertain as to whether a cable adaptor would need to be purchased as an additional expense and encumberance.

*Add 50% to the cost, where I am, and you will see why they are not considered a good option.

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

Yes but the max resolution is restricted to that of the iMac which is usually not a match for the secondary monitor. Users have also complained of not being able to color balance them.

Further problems arise when you push a glossy monitor aside, the reflections get worse, or persistently turn your head to work on a 2nd monitor.

Which all beggars the question of why must the user, who already has paid for a monitor, buy a 2nd and possibly unsuitable monitor just to fix the problem created by Apple.

Let the customer choose.

Is that such a difficult principle?

NB The 23" Apple display costs approximately 50%* of the cost of a new iMac 24" and is the best match to its resolution. There are a number of users complaining of quality control on the Apple Store website. I am also uncertain as to whether a cable adaptor would need to be purchased as an additional expense and encumberance.

*Add 50% to the cost, where I am, and you will see why they are not considered a good option.

Well, it seems that the customer IS deciding, and they're deciding on Macs. As of a Gardner report released yesterday, Apple's sales for the last quarter have increased over 30% while the industry in general has only increased about 15%. This has raised Apple to #3 in computer sales at 25% of the number sold by #1 Dell over the same period. Considering their grossly lower installed base at supposedly only 7% in the US, how are their sales continuing to rise far more rapidly than their competitors? If this rate continues, Apple's installed base will meet or exceed that of Windows in only a few short years.

I also have to question your conclusion that the max resolution is restricted on an external monitor. While I admit my 24" iMac display is capable of (and displays) 1900x1200, my 20" display couldn't show that resolution if it wanted to. So I see no limitation here. As for your complaint about "color accuracy," you seem to be unaware of color balancing packages available for all brands of computer and monitors.

Also, I use a second monitor not to 'fix a problem' but rather to move my controls off of the primary display and give me more room to work. I, for one, am very happy with the Apple's glossy display. And if you weren't so dead-set opposed to anything Apple, you might actually discover it can do the job better than you believe.

[Biallystock]

A second pallette monitor is a good idea. Something I enjoyed for many years before various Mac models made that impossible or the expense jumped to the point where it just wasn't worth it.

Check your facts. I got it straight from one of Apple's specialists. The new iMacs will not drive a monitor higher than their own resolution. Also those complaining of being unable to color manage their 2nd (or even 1st monitors) are using Spyders. It doesn't help if the display can not be dimmed far enough, or is lit unevenly or it just plain doesn't do the job.

I know the USA is the world to those who live there but in the rest of the world Apple is not faring so well. Also the figures you quote are both inaccurate and even if taken at face value will not result in Apple overtaking "Windows" in a few short years. That would require a growth rate in multiples every quarter just to get off its low penetration rate.

When you have a low percentage of the market, gaining 1 percentage or 2 is spectacular growth on your own market but not on the whole market. They'd have to grow 1400 to 1500% to get to the Windows share and that is assuming that the sale of regular PCs stands still.

It is simple maths. 30% growth on Macs share is only 2% of the total market (which I don't think Gardner's figures bear up) where as 15% growth of the PC market is still 13.5% of the total market. Show me how that will lead to Apple closing the gap when the PCs growth alone is double what Apple sells in total.

[Grapho]

Wow, so I would assume you think the 24" iMac laking in the resolution department? Professionals are already using multiple displays so your turning head argument seems disingenuous at best.

I got a MacPro, but my decision firmly rested in the extra processing power that it awards, not the glossy screen of the iMac. I have worked on these iMacs and I find them adequate. Also you mention color accuracy. For professional video, you already need en extra hi-end specialized monitor to accurately asses color, and for graphic design, even the best calibrated monitor is still only capable for soft proofing since critical color still needs CMYK calibrated printed proofs in order for a pressman to be able to match it. But you can reason one way or the other in liking or disliking Apple's offerings, yet the number of switchers keeps on growing. Apple has never sold as many computers as they do now, go figure.