MacWorld SF 2007 - Apple Moves the Earth Again

[Ian Osborne]

IBM was worried tha Apple was going to dominate in the marketplace with IIRC the Apple ][ so they set about creating a competitor. They decided that they would use an open architecture and so designed the first PC and booted it with an IBM bios chip. They needed an OS so they approached Mr. Gates who in turn approached the owner of Dr. DOS who missed the appointment prefering to go flying instead. Gates then found a local Seattle guy who had a basic disc operating system based on CPM. Gates bought this system and hired the guy. He was then able to sell DOS to IBM for their new PC.

The new PC was cheaper than Apples and having IBM's business expertise meant applications that were oriented to business. Business not only could afford them but saw the need for them. IBM had a good market.

Later the IBM bios would be cloned and clones hit the market. They all used MS-DOS. Microsoft being in the right place at the right time became a huge company.

It was really IBM who started the PC craze. MS rode their coattails.

(That is the story as well as I can remember.)

Now IBM is a heavy supporter of Linux. Hmmm.

ETA: I think it was the cloning of the IBM bios that started the PC to market domination over all comers. Apple, the most notable and to a lesser extent Amiga.

He's made up his mind - don't confuse him with the facts!

 

[CFLarsen]

Cheaper ALWAYS outsells better.

Not true. It depends a lot on people's financial capacity.

Again, Corvette sales can't hold a candle to Taurus sales. More people would probably rather have a Corvette. But more people buy a Taurus. Does that make a Taurus a better car?

If Corvettes were really better, wouldn't they outsell the Taurus?

Taurus and Corvettes are two different markets: A Taurus is more of a family car, where a Corvette is for males in their late 40's with receding hairlines.

I hate to say it but that first argument is totally gone with the introduction of the Intel Macs. They can run OSX and MS Windows. That makes that particular hardware among the most versatile computer hardware you can buy.

And yet, Intel Macs don't have a majority of the market share.

I can't run OSX on my box. So I guess it is my machine that is limited.

The use of an OS is closely connected to how much software there is. Why run an OS where the number of software packages is limited?

I would rather see OS distribution more even with more emphasis on interoperability rather than MS trying to create their own proprietary standards. With Apple's unixxy underpinnings I think eventually it is going to be MS left on the outside lookng in. (That is my dream. Don't take it away. )

It's a dream alright!

I also don't think it is fair to call Apples expensive. They usually are packaged with top quality monitors that are of far better quality than much of the cheap crap PC packages sell with. That adds quite a lot of value.

Dell has made a fortune selling PCs where their customers can choose their own monitor. Give the customer a choice, and you got a winner. That's what Apple is missing.

Or music that people will listen to?

Rather compare it to the hardware and software that people use to listen to music with. MP3 won, and so did the MP3-players.

Remember the brouhaha over iTunes? You want to buy a certain piece of music, but can only buy it at one place, and only play it with one player? Real smart!

Because quality and sales are not directly proportional. Why does Sylvia Brown's website get so many more hits than Skeptic Report?

...how do you know how many hits each get?

Is Sylvia smarter, more talented and generally better than SR's editor?

Well, she's not prettier, that's for sure!

IBM was worried tha Apple was going to dominate in the marketplace with IIRC the Apple ][ so they set about creating a competitor. They decided that they would use an open architecture and so designed the first PC and booted it with an IBM bios chip. They needed an OS so they approached Mr. Gates who in turn approached the owner of Dr. DOS who missed the appointment prefering to go flying instead. Gates then found a local Seattle guy who had a basic disc operating system based on CPM. Gates bought this system and hired the guy. He was then able to sell DOS to IBM for their new PC.

The new PC was cheaper than Apples and having IBM's business expertise meant applications that were oriented to business. Business not only could afford them but saw the need for them. IBM had a good market.

Later the IBM bios would be cloned and clones hit the market. They all used MS-DOS. Microsoft being in the right place at the right time became a huge company.

It was really IBM who started the PC craze. MS rode their coattails.

(That is the story as well as I can remember.)

Now IBM is a heavy supporter of Linux. Hmmm.

All this explains why both IBM and Microsoft were so successful in the PC market: They understood that proprietary systems was not the answer: To make the market grow, they had to allow competitors to enter the market. It is only recently that Apple has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Does look nice and interesting - wonder how it will do in the phone market overall and especially away from the USA.

Is anyone else scratching their heads and wondering why they've released it with only 4GB or 8GB of memory? My iPod as a 40GB hard drive, and that's only 3G - black and white screen, and no video or photo capabilities. Reading the rumours and watching Apple's dealings with the US Patents Office, I was expecting two products, the iPhone with organiser, internet and MP3-playback features, and a full-screen iPod Video with a decent-sized hard drive. Reading the specs of what we did get, I can't help wishing this was indeed the case...

 

[Darat]

Is anyone else scratching their heads and wondering why they've released it with only 4GB or 8GB of memory? My iPod as a 40GB hard drive, and that's only 3G - black and white screen, and no video or photo capabilities. Reading the rumours and watching Apple's dealings with the US Patents Office, I was expecting two products, the iPhone with organiser, internet and MP3-playback features, and a full-screen iPod Video with a decent-sized hard drive. Reading the specs of what we did get, I can't help wishing this was indeed the case...

Probably cost and battery life.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Remember the brouhaha over iTunes? You want to buy a certain piece of music, but can only buy it at one place, and only play it with one player? Real smart!

iTunes current market share - 88%. Smart enough?

...how do you know how many hits each get?

According to Alexa.com:

www.sylvia.org - Site Ranking 198,546
www.theskepticalreview.com - Site Ranking 2,384,967

Incidentally, Skeptical Review isn't even at the top of a Google search for 'Skeptical Review'!

Well, she's not prettier, that's for sure!

I'll give you that one.

All this explains why both IBM and Microsoft were so successful in the PC market: They understood that proprietary systems was not the answer: To make the market grow, they had to allow competitors to enter the market. It is only recently that Apple has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

IBM almost went bust a few years back, after making the biggest annual loss in corporate history. And did you really just say Microsoft became successful by allowing competitors to enter the market?

<rereads post>

You did!

 

[CFLarsen]

iTunes current market share - 88%. Smart enough?

Of what market?

According to Alexa.com:

www.sylvia.org - Site Ranking 198,546
www.theskepticalreview.com - Site Ranking 2,384,967

Incidentally, Skeptical Review isn't even at the top of a Google search for 'Skeptical Review'!

Incidentally, it's SkepticReport. With an Alexa ranking of 230,421.

IBM almost went bust a few years back, after making the biggest annual loss in corporate history.

Do you want to talk about Apple's financial history?

And did you really just say Microsoft became successful by allowing competitors to enter the market?

<rereads post>

You did!

What I'm saying is that Apple is so intent on controlling what runs on their machines that it stifles their use. Microsoft doesn't have that problem.

 

[Darat]

Of what market?

Of 100%!

Actually and this isn't an Apple bash - I was just looking to see if I could quickly see how big the music download business was and this was one of the first links I found:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236217,00.html

Since January 2006, the number of monthly iTunes transactions has declined 58 percent, while the average size per purchase declined by 17 percent, leading to a 65-percent overall drop in monthly iTunes revenue, U.S. market research group Forrester said in a survey among North American consumers.

"It is too soon to tell if this decline was seasonal or if buyers were reaching their saturation level for digital music," Forrester said in the report, which was published to its clients last week and made available to Reuters on Wednesday.

Please note the story is "fox news" and apparently some of our USA Members seem to think their reporting may not that impartial and as far as I know Murdoch does not own Apple!

If that is a true decline and not just a blip that should be worrying for Apple.

 

[CFLarsen]

Of 100%!

Cheeky!

 

[Ian Osborne]

If that is a true decline and not just a blip that should be worrying for Apple.

From Steve Jobs' keynote earlier today: "There was an article recently stating that iTunes sales have slowed dramatically; I don't know what data they're looking at..." (Shows chart with insane upward slope.) "We are selling over 5 million songs a day now. That's 58 songs every second... the last time we talked we were the fifth largest music retailer in the US. We have now passed Amazon; we sell more music than Amazon and we are now #4."

 

[CFLarsen]

we are now #4."

Of what? If they have a market share of 88%, how can they be #4?

"New Math"?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Of what? If they have a market share of 88%, how can they be #4?

88% of digital downloads, #4 of all music retailers.

 

[CFLarsen]

That sounds fishy.

 

[Mercutio]

No, that would be Carlsberg.

Amazing how companies try to hide their rankings, but it appears that the best-selling beer in the world is bud light.

I'm implying a connection between market share and computers that people will use.

Or beer that they will drink? Or cars that they will drive? Or do you wish to cherry-pick your examples so that your preconceived stance is supported?

If Macs have such a better quality OS, why don't they have a much bigger market share?

If Carlberg is better, why don't they have a bigger market share? Is it just because Bud is cheaper?

Oh, wait, someone already claimed that cheaper will win out over better...

Not true. It depends a lot on people's financial capacity.

But not when it disconfirms your preconceived notions about macs. Gotcha.

Taurus and Corvettes are two different markets: A Taurus is more of a family car, where a Corvette is for males in their late 40's with receding hairlines.

Oh, so there is more to the story than just popularity? Only a narrow-minded fool would simply argue based on market share, then, no?

And yet, Intel Macs don't have a majority of the market share.

I forget--am I right or wrong here?

The use of an OS is closely connected to how much software there is. Why run an OS where the number of software packages is limited?

See jimlintott's post.

Enough.

Market share is your standard when it suits you, and is irrelevant when it does not. Something "sounds fishy" when it goes against your preconceptions.

Marvelous example of skepticism, Claus.

 

[rebecca]

88% of digital downloads, #4 of all music retailers.

That sounds fishy.

Surely you can do better than an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Ha ha, just kidding, we know you can't.

 

[Darat]

From Steve Jobs' keynote earlier today: "There was an article recently stating that iTunes sales have slowed dramatically; I don't know what data they're looking at..." (Shows chart with insane upward slope.) "We are selling over 5 million songs a day now. That's 58 songs every second... the last time we talked we were the fifth largest music retailer in the US. We have now passed Amazon; we sell more music than Amazon and we are now #4."

Glad I covered my backside then when I posted that story - mind you I have to say I am always at least slightly skeptical about claims made by CEOs about their own companies.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Claus, the world doesn't revolve around you nor does this board. Why can't you just let Mac fans discuss the new stuff without having to deal with your childish trolling. This thread didn't start out Mac vs. PC. Why did you have to turn it into that?

We get it. You don't like Macs. We've heard it the first hundred times. Stop making this board so damn unenjoyable. So many people on this board are tired of you. What are you? In your 40s? Your day shouldn't be spent looking for ways to be annoying. Get the message. Your personality stinks. When so many people on one board mock you, tease you, tell you to grow up, tell you you're a hypocrite, etc. it's probably not them at fault. It's you. You should seek to improve your communication skills because you come across so badly, so often. Get help. Seriously.

 

[jimlintott]

The use of an OS is closely connected to how much software there is. Why run an OS where the number of software packages is limited?

I disagree. I believe that the OS is chosen based on what software you want to run. Pixar is a Linux shop because Renderman was an easy port from one unix to another and it clusters very well.

An email, dns, web server running on a BSD or *nix is a very sane and clean operation which is why they tend to dominate the serving of the internet. See, MS doesn't dominate all markets in the software world.

All this explains why both IBM and Microsoft were so successful in the PC market: They understood that proprietary systems was not the answer: To make the market grow, they had to allow competitors to enter the market. It is only recently that Apple has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

I'm sure that is part of the reason. That and cheaper prices is why I've always been a PC guy. That also only applies to the hardware which was IBM's baby. Since then MS has done almost everything in their power to create proprietary systems.

But, let's think like a CEO for a bit. In those early days if someone said that accounting would like some of these new personal computers and we can buy them from Apple or IBM. Chances are that CEO had never heard of Apple while they had some big IBM iron already running. Going IBM was a no-brainer.

Apple had to cultivate other markets and went after desktop publishing and more artsy less number crunching type customers. Apple was king of the DTP market for quite a while.

By the early nineties people started buying computers for home. One reason was to do work at home so they bought what they used at work. IBM / MS owned this market by then. Unix systems were way too expensive for home use.

I really blame Charlie Chaplin.

 

[Bell]

Bwahaha!! Who still uses Macs these days?! Oh wait... I do!

Everytime I'm over at my parents house, and my father asks me to help him with some PC problems, after a while of trying to fix the problem, I feel like tossing that PC out of the Window(tm). I don't understand how people can life with PCs and Windows...

 

[JamesM]

Why can't you just let Mac fans discuss the new stuff without having to deal with your childish trolling. This thread didn't start out Mac vs. PC. Why did you have to turn it into that?

It takes two to tango. People should just ignore him.

 

[progressquest]

OK, though I am a PC user, I am extending the olive branch to the Mac world by starting a new thread to continue the discussion of PC vs Mac here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2243676#post2243676