$499 Mac?

[CFLarsen]

It is because they are harder to program for. The best analogy I can come up for this is the Playstation 2. It is a bi*** to program for, yet it has the most, and it has the highest quality software avaliable. Also it's hardware is superior to the XBox and the Gamecube.

The reason why Mac has such a miniscule market segment, as in not as many programs avaliable, is that programmers in general don't like the fact that they have to spend more time debugging their programs before releasing it on the Mac. Fewer updates are needed for Mac software for that very reason, while more updates more frequently are needed for PC Software. Take a look at the amount of bug reports there are for Mac Programs.

Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

Would I be far off, if I described the Mac as an expensive corpse with a lot of make-up, worshipped by necrophiliacs?

We are also not merely talking about minuscule market segments when it comes to program availability, we are also talking about hardware. Macs don't sell in large quantities, despite their proclaimed advantages. I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Right now, I am thinking that the CEO of Apple is just wanting to stick with the nitch market. I think the $499.00 IMac is going to be an experiment into the market to see how it reacts.

I wonder how the stockholders see this "let's keep a low market share"-approach.

If you mean gaining most of the market, then yes, it hasn't paid off.

Not just most of the market - Apple haven't been able to get just a recognizable market share. Apple computers are not a minority, they are a fraction of a minority.

I've known about the video wars for some time. Now it looks like the audio wars will be coming up soon. Super Audio CD Vs. DVD-Audio

Yep. Bad for consumers, too.

I will give you that. In fact, there are mods and software avaliable that can make a windows or linux machine look and feel like a mac.

So, why buy a Mac? You get a lower performing computer at a higher price, with an almost non-existent program catalogue. With B&O, at least you get a very good sound system.

Well, it works if they are still wanting to stick with their little nitch market of 3 - 5%, which would include me.

Which is fine - if you like living in a closed-off environment. But I have yet to see compelling arguments for buying a Mac.

Obviously, Hardware that has alot of software avaliable is generally going to market better in the long run.

Indeed. This is logic for retarded chickens, but Apple doesn't seem to catch on.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Because there are a lot of stupid people around?

If you think popularity is an indication of quality, check out the singles charts. Or ask yourself what gets the most viewers, Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t or Crossing Over with Jonathan Edward.

 

[epepke]

Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

It isn't.

I own two Windows PCs, two Macs (one broken), and a Linux PC. I've made actual money writing programs for the Mac, Windows, and Linux (plus Windows CE and Palm OS).

The best and easiest system to program for, assuming one is making programs with a GUI is Mac Cocoa. Palm OS is second. WIN32 for XP-line OS is third, tied with Windows CE. Mac Carbon is fourth. Linux with whatever is fifth. WIN32 for Windows 98, 95, ME, and earlier is sixth.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because there are a lot of stupid people around?

If you think popularity is an indication of quality, check out the singles charts. Or ask yourself what gets the most viewers, Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t or Crossing Over with Jonathan Edward.

It's not that simple. The PC is also used in businesses, and there, they look at things in a less-than-emotional way. Program availability, data compatibility, price, maintenance....

I won't even call believers in John Edward stupid as such. It's more like a disturbing refusal to realize reality...

 

[Ian Osborne]

I won't even call believers in John Edward stupid as such. It's more like a disturbing refusal to realize reality...

Just like PC owners!

Ok, ok, I'll shut up now...

 

[CFLarsen]

Just like PC owners!

Ok, ok, I'll shut up now...

You better!

 

[Powa]

I'm a PC owner but I have to work on a mac at work (Mac OS 9.2). I didn't like macs before, but I absolutely hate them now. The OS is cumbersome and way inferior to Windows (IMHO). Granted, I've only tried Mac OS X for a few minutes so it may be better. I don't know. Anyway, I don't see a reason why I should pay more for a slower machine with FAR less software. Security? I maintain four computers at home (all connected to internet via adsl) practically without ever seeing a virus or malware. If you're sufficiently protected you have very little to worry about.
The only people using macs in my country are graphics professionals (designers, printers). This stems from the times when PC's were using monochrome graphics and the only computers suitable for designing and desktop publishing were macs. Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

This was posted from a mac.

 

[CFLarsen]

There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

Precisely.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OSX Macs are secure against all known viruses and worms straight out of the box. A Windows machine is lucky if it can connect to the internet long enough to dowload a security update without being compromised.

Macs are made from high-quality parts which are designed to work together. They don't cough and die because your motherboard doesn't like your sound board, or your graphics card doesn't like your monitor. They also last: my sweetie's Mac is about six years old and mine is five, and neither has ever seen the inside of a repair shop. No component has failed.

Apart from games, there is Mac software to do just about whatever you want. Unless you need a specific Windows app to do your job, you can probably do it on a Mac.

Setting up small networks, ethernet or wireless, is practically painless even for a layperson.

You can cut and paste just about anything into just about anything.

Multitasking works the way it damn well should.

Every application keeps its menus in the same place.

Whether those features are worth the extra money to you is a matter of taste.

(By the way, I'd just like to say that like everyone else here I could run Apple better than that silly Steve Jobs. I just don't understand why the shareholders don't dump that idiot and hire one of us. We see so much more clearly how to make Apple a success. We should email them or something).

 

[DaveW]

I'm a PC owner but I have to work on a mac at work (Mac OS 9.2). I didn't like macs before, but I absolutely hate them now. The OS is cumbersome and way inferior to Windows (IMHO). Granted, I've only tried Mac OS X for a few minutes so it may be better. I don't know. Anyway, I don't see a reason why I should pay more for a slower machine with FAR less software. Security? I maintain four computers at home (all connected to internet via adsl) practically without ever seeing a virus or malware. If you're sufficiently protected you have very little to worry about.
The only people using macs in my country are graphics professionals (designers, printers). This stems from the times when PC's were using monochrome graphics and the only computers suitable for designing and desktop publishing were macs. Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

This was posted from a mac.

PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

 

[Powa]

OSX Macs are secure against all known viruses and worms straight out of the box. A Windows machine is lucky if it can connect to the internet long enough to dowload a security update without being compromised.

I agree that's a problem for a person who doesn't know much about online security.

Macs are made from high-quality parts which are designed to work together. They don't cough and die because your motherboard doesn't like your sound board, or your graphics card doesn't like your monitor. They also last: my sweetie's Mac is about six years old and mine is five, and neither has ever seen the inside of a repair shop. No component has failed.

One of the PCs in my house is a nine-year-old 90 MHz pentium that has never had a failure. In fact none of the four PCs have, other than one funky disk (eventualy replaced) and a lightning frying a NIC in one of them.

Apart from games, there is Mac software to do just about whatever you want. Unless you need a specific Windows app to do your job, you can probably do it on a Mac.

Sure, you can cut a tree with an axe, too, but why not take a chainsaw to do it. I'm just saying that you have broader choice of software on a PC. If you don't like a program just try next 50.

Setting up small networks, ethernet or wireless, is practically painless even for a layperson.

With Windows XP all you need is hardware and a Windows CD to do it. No experiense with LANs necessary (in theory anyway).

You can cut and paste just about anything into just about anything.

And on PCs you can't?

Multitasking works the way it damn well should.

And on PCs it doesn't? I sometimes work with 5 or 6 programs at the same time without problems (not counting things like antivirus software and ZoneAlarm running in the back).

Every application keeps its menus in the same place.

And this is my main problem with macs. Things are much more disorganized this way. I like my programs to be in one window with menus and all.

Whether those features are worth the extra money to you is a matter of taste.

What exactly is worth the extra money is beyond me but I admit I'm PC biased.

 

[kookbreaker]

Regarding the "Anything you can do on a Mac, I can do on a PC" crowd, I will say this much. I have been in the catalog business for several years now. Everything in the catalog construction part of the business is Mac based. I've been hearing for years about how "Windows is gonna get that market" or "XPs coming and will totally knock Macs out of the Photo studios".

It hasn't happened yet. I cannot attribute this to intertia. While a PC can technically do the things a Mac can, it is sort of like saying I can ride my bike 10 miles or walk them. The end is the same, but one was much easier to do.

I have nothing against PCs, and I actually think XP is a darn good interface (when it works the way it is advertised). But I've never heard of an equivelant horror of "Service Pack 2" from the Mac camp.

The idea of $499 Mac is a good one since the iron is getting mighty hot for the computer market. The ipod has some people already gazing at Macs for the first time, and the misbehavior of PC manufacturers is starting to wear thin on some customers. Dell, once a paragon of customer service, has become a bunch of Indians reading from repair scripts. While I was between jobs earlier in 2004, I did some computer work for family friends. These were mostly older folks who had trashed their computers when they followed the instructions given to them by a person who could barely speak the language.

How bad is it? Consumer Reports actually discussed Macs for the first time in years. Until recently, the barely listed Macs as an "also ran", if they mentioned them at all, and they usually didn't. But the CS issue have become too much of an albatross. add to that the use of low quality parts to cut margins to the bone can come back to haunt them. However, int he past the tendancy was for a disgruntled PC owner was to move from the distressed brand to another PC manufacturer. That company would then rise int he ranks and start having the same problems. Look at the #1 PC manufacturer over the years and you'll see its like a syndrome... and we are running out of PC manufacturers to run to. HP, Gateway, Packard Bell, all were once the top dog.

Macs won't get the majority of the total market share. There are far too many 1-job computers in this world (warehouse computor, Order taking computer at McDonalds). There's no point to having a Mac in those positions, and there are a lot of them. Macs aim instead for the specialty market and they have done a mediocre to great job at that over the years. There is nothing wrong with aiming for speciality markets, something peopel who point to percentages seem to forget.

Macs, for the near future, will gain market share. If PC's lose any it will be due to the manufacturers faults rather than Microsoft's.

 

[rockoon]

PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

Actualy.. back then the "home machine" with the best graphics was the Apple IIgs which could display 3200 colors at once.

Their line of MAC's at the time could only do grayscale graphics so the IIgs was far far superior but Apple got into a bigtime lawsuit over the sound capabilities in the IIgs system and had to drop the line entirely. Seems they had had a deal with Apple Records where they could use the Apple name as long as they didnt dabble in the music industry. Woops!!

The Apple IIgs was the finest affordable system that could be purchased at the time. Better graphics and sound than an Amiga (tho the Atari ST was still the king of MIDI) and plenty of support.

 

[epepke]

Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

Not really. There's nothing that you can do on a Mac that you can't do approximately on a Windows system, but a number of things are still superior for graphics on the Mac. (I'm talking OS X, now. 9.2 is approximately comparable to Windows 95 or 98.) Such as Pantone color matching, which is built into the OS and so is guaranteed available for all graphics programs. The kernal in OS X is much superior in multitasking to Windows XP. My 800 mHz Mac gives better multimedia performance than my 2.88 gig Windows PC.

As I said, I use and program both. Windows has some superiorities I could name, but it's ludicrous to say that Mac has no superiorities, either.

 

[Peskanov]

Claus,

Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

This is because "Mac be harder to program" is a blatant lie. Obviously Theodore is not a programmer, or he is a very uninformed one.
Where is your famous skepticism Claus?
The PowerPC architecture is quite clean (although there are better ones like ARM imo) and certainly is miles away from the horrible, multi-layered mess called x86 (a design disaster area already in 1976).
And the Apple OS is in no way worse than the Windows nightmare to program.

Would I be far off, if I described the Mac as an expensive corpse with a lot of make-up, worshipped by necrophiliacs?

Yes you would, because you are assuming that because there exist blind Apple fanatics, there are not reasonable motives to like or even prefer this architecture.

We are also not merely talking about minuscule market segments when it comes to program availability, we are also talking about hardware. Macs don't sell in large quantities, despite their proclaimed advantages. I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Well, they are not SO superior, although they were in it's time (until Windows 95).
Do you wants reasons about why a good product sells worse than a worse produt? Or maybe you are simply arguing that the product that sells better is the best product (a la Shanek)?

 

[Nasarius]

The PowerPC architecture is quite clean (although there are better ones like ARM imo) and certainly is miles away from the horrible, multi-layered mess called x86 (a design disaster area already in 1976).

Indeed. I got flamed quite badly on Slashdot for pointing out the same...should've known better. It's amazing that AMD has been able to do so well with an aging mess of an architecture like x86. Intel can't even manage to design a good processor when they ditch x86 entirely (witness the disaster that was IA64). IBM makes good processors, and Apple knows it

That said, I don't care for OS X at all. It looks pretty, but it's a pain in the ass to use. But I'd gladly buy a sub-$700 small form-factor headless Mac and run Linux on it.

 

[Nasarius]

Linux with whatever is fifth

Have you tried Qt? It's a little odd at first, but pretty neat once you get used to it.

Sadly, my only other real experience with APIs is Ye Olde Win32. Never had the opportunity to try .NET because everything I write for Windows has to be compatible with NT4. *shudder*

 

[epepke]

PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

Some other MS-DOS computers, such as the Z-100, had color that was much better than CGA. They failed, too.

In any event, the thing that made the Mac work with desktop publishing, apart from the square pixels, was the Apple LaserWriter. I worked with two laser printers that used the same engine a couple of years previously: the QMS and the Imagen. (The Imagen was better. I modified WordStar to print to it and even downloaded a Scharfes "S." I was teaching German at the time).

Melding this with PostScript and converting the Mac to do decent (though not perfect) WYSIWYG is what made the Mac take off for desktop publishing.

Oddly enough, desktop publishing is, in general, crappier now than it was back then. I see coarse bitmapped images all the time these days. Back then, there was a push for PostScript vector graphics, which looked really nice. Nowadays, nobody seems to care.

The Amiga was a superlative machine. It was cheap, and it worked great. However, it also failed. As did the BBC Color Computer, which was also pretty impressive for its time.

 

[epepke]

Have you tried Qt? It's a little odd at first, but pretty neat once you get used to it.

Sadly, my only other real experience with APIs is Ye Olde Win32. Never had the opportunity to try .NET because everything I write for Windows has to be compatible with NT4. *shudder*

Yes. I like Qt. I also like OpenStep.

I rate Linux fifth in terms of programmer experience because you basically have to connect all the dots, throw the pieces together yourself. This is doable but suboptimal. The documentation is all over the place, which is kind of annoying. Also, if one wants to sell one's software, one gets nickled and dimed to death.

I have so far managed to avoid touching .NET with a ten-foot pole or even an eight-foot Estonian. .NET is a good basic idea, but like many MS ideas, it's a bit like the scene in Theatre of Blood where Vincent Price kills a woman by mashing her cooked dogs into her gullet through a funnel. It's obvious that the corporate strategy is to have C# win, and everything else gets pooched.

 

[Nasarius]

For once, the rumors were 100% correct.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/

If I don't get a PowerBook (still not sure), I'll buy a Mac mini this year. Very nice.