Mac vs PC

[Yoink]

This list is pretty hilarious. Only the true Mac-zealot could see any of this as "attacks on Macs." It's essentially equivalent to "war on Christmas" stuff.

1) I forgot how many times the phrase 'The inevitable death of Apple' has been used since 1981.

I Googled the phrase. Two hits. Both on pro-Mac sites.

2) When the iMacs first came out, there were massive predictions of it being a failure

Not sure what would make one prediction more "massive" than another. I'm sure there such predictions. I can't see how these would be evidence of "anti-Mac" sentiment. They're assessments of a market--a market which everyone recognizes as being capable of failing to reward quality.

3) Oh, it was a failure. Didn't you know that?

Well, sure--in that it failed to capture significant market share, it was, in some senses, a failure.

4) The iPod was also a sales failure. Didn't you know that?

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody say that the iPod was a sales failure. It is certainly not a widespread opinion. Most PC users would happily recognize iPods as the leading mp3 players.

5) In an earthquake, your iMac will actually try to kill you! (I wish I were making that up)

Well, you are, so your wish is granted. Here's the actual article to which you are referring. The writer is saying that he preferred the old iMac design, which was less top-heavy than the new iMac design, because of the inherent instability of the top-heavy design in an earthquake. Comparing one Mac unfavorably to another Mac is hardly anti-Mac zealotry, is it? Nor does he say it will "kill you" in an earthquake, he merely points out that broken glass could present a hazard if you're evacuating your house in bare feet at night. You, perhaps, don't live in earthquake-prone territory, but flatscreen TVs and computer-in-the-monitor personal computers are a very real concern for those of us who do (modern flat screen TVs are much less inherently stable than old cathode tube models--there is considerable concern these days even in non-earthquake-prone places about toddlers pulling flat-screen TVs down on top of themselves; I don't see why computer-in-the-monitor Macs or PCs wouldn't pose the same risk).

http://www.digitaltrends.com/talk-backs/apple-mac-mini-and-ipod-shuffle-worth-the-hype/

) There were a couple of pundits who actually seemed to be drooling for the death of Steve Jobs when he got ill.

I doubt that's true. But then, you don't seem to believe in providing any evidence to support your claims.

 

[GreNME]

I am more amused by the fact that the PC world had to react to the Mac ads at all. I mean c'mon: "Oh noes! The group with 5-10% of the market share is being mean in their ads! We must COUNTERATTACK!!!!!"

Far better it would have been to try and pretend they didn't exist.

Considering Microsoft had been ignoring Apple's attack ads since the "switcher" ads started running (anyone remember stoner Ellen?), which is something on the order of 6-7 years, the fact that Microsoft started gearing up some responses in conjunction with the Win 7 release-- since the Vista roll-out went poorly, mostly due to bad marketing, hardware manufacturer apathy, and attack ad memes-- had more to do with addressing the rash of bad press about Windows than it did directly addressing Apple for their ads. Since you never once hear the Windows ads directly comparing themselves to Macs (which is pretty much key to Apple's marketing right now), it's not like Microsoft is acknowledging them much beyond the common public perception of an "Apple tax" that people on budgets don't want to spend.

While the Microsoft ads are more openly dirty in their attitude than usual, they don't acknowledge Apple even a fraction of the amount that the Mac ads do, which seems perfectly proportionate in terms of market numbers. I don't really like either company's ads on the matter, but in all honesty if I had to choose I would go with Microsoft's, only because the Apple ads lack even a modicum of subtlety.

 

[GreNME]

Yoink, different publications have predicted the end of Apple several times over the last two and a half decades. No need to be incredulous over that, because Apple has indeed been close to the brink more than once, only to come back and recover for the most part (their latest being the best recovery to date). Oh, and since you didn't realize it, Macs actually had significant market share in the 1980's until Steve-O left, and this is actually why you saw Macs in schools so often around that time.

As for "pundits" taking glee in Mr. Jobs' cancer, I wouldn't put such an attitude past the likes of scumbags like Dvorak, but then again he's a "pundit" in the same way that Glenn Beck is a "news reporter."

 

[jsiv]

So what's the conclusion?

Mac sucks, is it?

 

[Modified]

Choosing arbitrary reasons to support your assertion makes no more sense than saying that Apple computers are stupid because they only have one mouse button.

I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary reasons. It is not a reason I made up, it is the reason for my opinion.

A better analogy would be for me to say that one-button mice were a major weakness in Apple computers (in the past, of course), and when you asked why, to explain that they reduce productivity because the use of context menus is frequent for many users and requiring two hands to do that is awkward and inefficient. You could then tell me that that was an arbitrary reason, and I would explain that it is the reason for my opinion.

Windows has several scripting shells to choose from, they're just not command-line-based. If you want to access the hardware on Windows through scripting-- learn to utilize the Windows Script Host and stop demanding that a square peg go through a round hole.

You may be right. By the time Win 95 / NT got to the point where we could consider them obsolete (which would have been fairly recent - we do still support them but only because it hasn't yet cost us anything to do so), we already had native applications in place for many years and plenty of inertia.

No offense meant, but you should attempt to preach that "application development" speech to the Linux crowd first, since package management is a clustersomething depending on distribution, which is simply a microcosm of platform differences anyway.

First, I haven't mentioned Linux until this post. Standard package management across Linux and UNIX would be great, and lack of it is a major weakness. Like many developers, we don't bother with packaging on UNIX/Linux (except OS X), though there are third parties who package and distribute our product using dpkg and RPM. For now, OS X makes up about 10% of our user base and Linux about 1%, so it isn't worth it. If there were one Linux package manager to rule them all, we would probably distribute a Linux-specific package, just to benefit that 1%.

 

[HarryKeogh]

So what's the conclusion?

Mac sucks, is it?

Only a PC user would think that.

It's obvious that the unanimous consensus is "get a Mac".

 

[Vic Vega]

See, and that's where I disagree. They're very rarely, if ever, on the mark. The same with the Windows one playing the "too expensive" card. But the point of marketing isn't to be honest to the consumer, and Apple has a long history of making creative use of hyperbole to cater to the "cool" image.

Just so you know: Macs update just as often as (if not more than) Windows PCs do, and you have to reboot just as often.

I didn't mean to imply that they aren't exagerated. They are, but many of the things they "pick on" PCs for are things I've seen on my own PCs over the years. I generally deal with the issues without too much stress. I'm a Systems Engineer for a computer company, so I'm fairly competent with Windows (though I use Unix much more than Windows at work). The complete and utter disaster I experienced after that update was simply the last straw.

I'm not sure Macs are "Too expensive". Ask me after I've had one for awhile and I'll let you know. They are absolutely more expensive than PCs for similar features and performance. Apple admints as much in their FAQ*. None of the Mac apologists in this thread beating up on poor dtugg can convince me otherwise because the last time I bought a PC I compared the two at length and ended up with a PC because the difference was so significant. In hindsight, I should have bought a Mac.

The reboot wasn't the issue. Failing to come back up after the reboot was the issue.


* From Apple's FAQ:

"Why should I spend more money on a Mac?

When you compare the cost of a PC and factor in the additional software, memory, and other extras you have to buy to go along with it, the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great as most people believe. And because the Mac comes with so many built-in applications that you’ll enjoy using for both work and play (rather than useless freebies you’ll want to uninstall), a Mac makes good financial sense. Finally, a Mac is built with the most cutting-edge technology by some of the smartest hardware engineers, software developers, and product designers on the planet. So you’re getting the latest technological advances and a computer that isn’t in danger of becoming obsolete anytime soon."

I would disagree with this, though:

"the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great as most people believe".

The difference in price is exactly as great as I believe, but that won't be an issue for me if I have fewer problems than I've had over the last 10 years of using PCs.

 

[kookbreaker]

This list is pretty hilarious. Only the true Mac-zealot could see any of this as "attacks on Macs." It's essentially equivalent to "war on Christmas" stuff.

I am just making observations, and I admitted they were personally biased. You need not get uppity and defensive about my own observations. You certainly don't need to run at me with your label gun to tag me with 'Mac Zealot'.

I Googled the phrase. Two hits. Both on pro-Mac sites.

The comment's primary usage predates the web. Even so, the phrase (without the added 'inevitable') is not eh only way to declare Apple's doom.

http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml

Not sure what would make one prediction more "massive" than another. I'm sure there such predictions. I can't see how these would be evidence of "anti-Mac" sentiment. They're assessments of a market--a market which everyone recognizes as being capable of failing to reward quality.

Nurr?

Well, sure--in that it failed to capture significant market share, it was, in some senses, a failure.

That's stretching it, don't you think? Apple pretty much sold them as fast as they were making them.

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody say that the iPod was a sales failure. It is certainly not a widespread opinion. Most PC users would happily recognize iPods as the leading mp3 players.

Steve Ballmer doesn't exist in your world?

Well, you are, so your wish is granted. Here's the actual article to which you are referring. The writer is saying that he preferred the old iMac design, which was less top-heavy than the new iMac design, because of the inherent instability of the top-heavy design in an earthquake. Comparing one Mac unfavorably to another Mac is hardly anti-Mac zealotry, is it? Nor does he say it will "kill you" in an earthquake, he merely points out that broken glass could present a hazard if you're evacuating your house in bare feet at night.

Which was an utterly idiotic observation based not on a totally unlikely circumstances but ignoring the fact that the iMac do not have a glass screen!

You, perhaps, don't live in earthquake-prone territory, but flatscreen TVs and computer-in-the-monitor personal computers are a very real concern for those of us who do (modern flat screen TVs are much less inherently stable than old cathode tube models--there is considerable concern these days even in non-earthquake-prone places about toddlers pulling flat-screen TVs down on top of themselves; I don't see why computer-in-the-monitor Macs or PCs wouldn't pose the same risk).

So why was the iMac singled out for this critcism? Flat screens were coming into vogue across the board? Oh, and they weren't made of glass, BTW.

 

[jsiv]

Only a PC user would think that.

It's obvious that the unanimous consensus is "get a Mac".

I'm writing this on my Amiga. We stopped talking talking to you Mac-heads when you betrayed the 68k.

 

[GreNME]

I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary reasons. It is not a reason I made up, it is the reason for my opinion.

Arbitrary reason =! reason you made up. It's not a compelling reason, because there is a solution to the problem you presented-- the Windows Script Host and the scripting shells made available to the Windows OS, completely built-in.

You may be right. By the time Win 95 / NT got to the point where we could consider them obsolete (which would have been fairly recent - we do still support them but only because it hasn't yet cost us anything to do so), we already had native applications in place for many years and plenty of inertia.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? If this "we" doesn't have people who understand the concept of Windows scripting, perhaps getting some .Net developers who actually understand programming for Windows is in order. We're more than a decade past the 9x/NT line of operating systems, and both consumer and businesses are running on essentially the same Windows kernel (per version) now.

First, I haven't mentioned Linux until this post. Standard package management across Linux and UNIX would be great, and lack of it is a major weakness. Like many developers, we don't bother with packaging on UNIX/Linux (except OS X), though there are third parties who package and distribute our product using dpkg and RPM. For now, OS X makes up about 10% of our user base and Linux about 1%, so it isn't worth it. If there were one Linux package manager to rule them all, we would probably distribute a Linux-specific package, just to benefit that 1%.

You didn't mention Linux, I did. I'm pointing out that package management and installer/uninstaller consistency are things that can't even be agreed upon by single platforms, let alone across platforms, so I'm not seeing the point of requiring a Single Shell to Rule Them All.

 

[Yoink]

Yoink, different publications have predicted the end of Apple several times over the last two and a half decades. No need to be incredulous over that, because Apple has indeed been close to the brink more than once, only to come back and recover for the most part (their latest being the best recovery to date).

He mentioned a specific phrase. I pointed out that he was wrong about that specific phrase.

Oh, and since you didn't realize it, Macs actually had significant market share in the 1980's until Steve-O left, and this is actually why you saw Macs in schools so often around that time.

He was talking about the iMac. That was introduced in the late 90s. It never captured serious market share compared to the PC.

 

[GreNME]

He mentioned a specific phrase. I pointed out that he was wrong about that specific phrase.

I didn't read it that way. A bit unnecessarily pedantic on your part, wouldn't you say?

He was talking about the iMac. That was introduced in the late 90s. It never captured serious market share compared to the PC.

Okay, I missed that part, so mea culpa. Still, the iMac gained a significant portion of the Mac market, and the market did see pretty enormous (relative to their own prior share) growth in sales. You're basically arguing that it was still a drop in the bucket, so to speak, yes?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm writing this on my Amiga. We stopped talking talking to you Mac-heads when you betrayed the 68k.

I'd reply to your post but I can't get it to display properly on my Timex Sinclair.

 

[kookbreaker]

He mentioned a specific phrase. I pointed out that he was wrong about that specific phrase.

Not much for flexibility are you?

For the record, and I think it was obvious to almost anyone familiar with the history, that 'the inevitable death of Apple' is never the phrase actually used. it is merely a phrase used by Apple pundits for its ironic content. Given the number of critics who have predicted Apple's doom, it applies quite well -The usual phrasing being "Inevitable death of Apple, film at 11".

He was talking about the iMac. That was introduced in the late 90s. It never captured serious market share compared to the PC.

[/QUOTE]

Was it supposed to? I do not recall it being in Apple's plan that the iMac would capture such a majority. They certainly weren't able to produce enough to do so. As far as I could tell, Apple was introducing a very simple, realtively compact computer for novices that was a reasonable price for a Mac. It was designed to get the company out of its directionless dire straits, make money, and generate sales, not sink Dell or Gateway's marketshare. I think you moved some goalposts.

 

[Yoink]

I am just making observations, and I admitted they were personally biased. You need not get uppity and defensive about my own observations. You certainly don't need to run at me with your label gun to tag me with 'Mac Zealot'.

Only a Mac-zeolot would see any of these things (and continue to see them, as you obviously do) as "attacks" on Mac. There are innumerable websites where Apple fanboys and fangirls get together and vent their frustration over perceived slights to Apple's wonderfulness. The fact that they can work themselves into a lather over someone comparing one aspect of an iMac design unfavorably to another iMac design is a perfect example of this kind of zealotry. "No! Every change in an Apple product is a march ever onward to a higher level of enlightenment! No criticism of any kind can be brooked! Kill the unbeliever!!!" It's hilariously absurd. If I mentioned that I found, say, the media buttons on my Dell Studio 15 annoyingly difficult to see compared to the ones on my older Dell laptop, no one would think I was "attacking PCs," would they?

The comment's primary usage predates the web. Even so, the phrase (without the added 'inevitable') is not eh only way to declare Apple's doom.

Ah, pre-Web criticism of Apple still rankles, eh? No...no hint of zealotry here!

http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml

Nurr?

Knarrr!!

That's stretching it, don't you think? Apple pretty much sold them as fast as they were making them.

Yes. Apple--being designed to spread sweetness and enlightenment throughout the world, doesn't actually care how many units it sells. It doesn't actually want people to buy their computers unless they're spiritually ready to do so.

Come off it--Apple's a company like any other. Of course they'd prefer it if they could sell bazillions of units (I'm sure they did sell them "as fast as they were making them"--that's known as effective inventory management. There's no point making more than you can sell. But I'm equally sure that they'd have been happy to sell more, and consequently make more of them to meet that demand).

Steve Ballmer doesn't exist in your world?

I looked, but could find no quote online of Ballmer saying that iPods were a sales failure. I'm sure there's some comment he did make once that the Apple faithful repeat endlessly to themselves in their mantras of "Apple slights" which will be avenged in the Coming Days.

But would it really be all that terribly surprising if Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft (for God's sake) tried to trash talk the competition a little? That hardly amounts to proof of "PC fanboys" reflexively dissing Apple, does it? (And, of course, we know that Apple would never, ever, say anything bad about PC products. They just refuse to sink to that level).

Which was an utterly idiotic observation based not on a totally unlikely circumstances but ignoring the fact that the iMac do not have a glass screen!

You should tell Apple to stop referring to the "arsenic free glass" that they use in their iMac screens then.

So why was the iMac singled out for this critcism? Flat screens were coming into vogue across the board? Oh, and they weren't made of glass, BTW.

He was reviewing the iMac!!! FFS! He was comparing the design of the NEW iMac to the OLD iMac and saying that this particular aspect of the design change worried him. It would have been completely irrelevant (and also redundant) to add "of course, this criticism also applies to any PC manufacturer who makes a similar model!!" Only the dedicated Mac-zeolot would think otherwise. OF COURSE it is true of any machine that has that design. The review doesn't say "OMG don't buy this killer-Mac!!! It will hunt you down and kill you in your sleep!!!!" It says "here's this one aspect of the design change that worries me." Again, only genuine True Believers could work themselves up into a froth about that. The proof of that being that there are lots of people out there spreading the word about the dangers of large flat screen TVs, and nobody calls them "TV-haters" or "part of the Anti-Panasonic crowd" or what have you.

 

[Yoink]

I didn't read it that way. A bit unnecessarily pedantic on your part, wouldn't you say?

No, I'd say it was necessarily pedantic .

Okay, I missed that part, so mea culpa. Still, the iMac gained a significant portion of the Mac market, and the market did see pretty enormous (relative to their own prior share) growth in sales. You're basically arguing that it was still a drop in the bucket, so to speak, yes?

No, I'm saying that IF there are, in fact, people who claimed that the iMac was not a particularly successful product (he has offered no evidence that that claim has ever been made), that that would be one reasonable reading of what they meant by the claim.

My major contention is that the things he was claiming as routine examples of attacks the PC fanboys make on Apple either a) don't actually occur in real life or b) aren't actually "attacks." For example, predicting that a certain Apple product won't sell is not an "attack" on the product, it's a comment on the market. Steve Jobs has no doubt said a thousand times--in the privacy of his office--"you know, that's a great idea for a product, but I don't think it will sell," and has probably said of actual Apple products "I don't think we're going to get the kind of market share with this that we want." That wouldn't be Jobs "attacking" his own products, it would be Jobs doing his best to assess the state of the market.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Would you say that one side is more accurate in its criticisms than the other?

Not really, no. I think they're probably about equally ignorant. Based on my personal observations, however, I would say that the average person (on either side of the debate) probably understands the technical issues better than the business issues. That may account for some of the perceived difference.

 

[GreNME]

No, I'd say it was necessarily pedantic .

And given the fact that there have historically been several predictions of Apple's demise, I'd disagree pretty strongly.

No, I'm saying that IF there are, in fact, people who claimed that the iMac was not a particularly successful product (he has offered no evidence that that claim has ever been made), that that would be one reasonable reading of what they meant by the claim.[/quote]

I see no good reason why. Since the introduction of the iMac, Apple's market share has nearly doubled on the larger home computing market. That's not entirely due to the iMac (and indeed likely has more to do with the iPod), but to consider it a failure seems to not have much support based on numbers.

My major contention is that the things he was claiming as routine examples of attacks the PC fanboys make on Apple either a) don't actually occur in real life or b) aren't actually "attacks." For example, predicting that a certain Apple product won't sell is not an "attack" on the product, it's a comment on the market. Steve Jobs has no doubt said a thousand times--in the privacy of his office--"you know, that's a great idea for a product, but I don't think it will sell," and has probably said of actual Apple products "I don't think we're going to get the kind of market share with this that we want." That wouldn't be Jobs "attacking" his own products, it would be Jobs doing his best to assess the state of the market.

I'm not going to bother trying to refute what you've put here, since you're assuming a whole lot of motivations and mental processes that are pretty much unprovable. Apple is a business, and so far a rather successful one in terms of profit and the stock market. Further, Apple's existence actually benefits Microsoft, in that Apple's continued existence makes a strong case against accusations of monopoly, so there's plenty of reason even Apple's biggest "enemy" wants to keep them around from a business perspective. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about the business practices and goals of Apple and its CEO to support your continued contrariness, and there's really no good purpose except for exemplifying the brand loyalty I talked about earlier.

 

[kookbreaker]

Only a Mac-zeolot would see any of these things (and continue to see them, as you obviously do) as "attacks" on Mac. There are innumerable websites where Apple fanboys and fangirls get together and vent their frustration over perceived slights to Apple's wonderfulness. The fact that they can work themselves into a lather over someone comparing one aspect of an iMac design unfavorably to another iMac design is a perfect example of this kind of zealotry. "No! Every change in an Apple product is a march ever onward to a higher level of enlightenment! No criticism of any kind can be brooked! Kill the unbeliever!!!" It's hilariously absurd. If I mentioned that I found, say, the media buttons on my Dell Studio 15 annoyingly difficult to see compared to the ones on my older Dell laptop, no one would think I was "attacking PCs," would they?

Seriously. Look in the mirror. The only one zealoting is you.

Ah, pre-Web criticism of Apple still rankles, eh? No...no hint of zealotry here!

http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml

You are very determined to have a hate on against me for making a pointed observation.

Yes. Apple--being designed to spread sweetness and enlightenment throughout the world, doesn't actually care how many units it sells. It doesn't actually want people to buy their computers unless they're spiritually ready to do so.

Considering how rigidly you defined my words earlier, you sure have added a lot to what I said. I'm sure Apple would love to have a majority marketshare. That being said it was not an economic & production feasability by any means. Apple knew it. They did produce a computer that saved their butt.

Come off it--Apple's a company like any other. Of course they'd prefer it if they could sell bazillions of units (I'm sure they did sell them "as fast as they were making them"--that's known as effective inventory management. There's no point making more than you can sell. But I'm equally sure that they'd have been happy to sell more, and consequently make more of them to meet that demand).

I hope you enjoyed raping that strawman.

I looked, but could find no quote online of Ballmer saying that iPods were a sales failure.

No, but he compared them to the Sony Walkman in a way that it was obvious that he thought it was a bad thing to compare it to, and then he declared the iPhone to be a failure before it even came out.

I'm sure there's some comment he did make once that the Apple faithful repeat endlessly to themselves in their mantras of "Apple slights" which will be avenged in the Coming Days.

Did you enjoy that? Would you like a ciggarette?

But would it really be all that terribly surprising if Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft (for God's sake) tried to trash talk the competition a little? That hardly amounts to proof of "PC fanboys" reflexively dissing Apple, does it? (And, of course, we know that Apple would never, ever, say anything bad about PC products. They just refuse to sink to that level).

Ballmer goes way beyond 'a little trash talk' and Apple is not his only target. At this point it is mostly amusing because he is so often *wrong*. yet here he is the president of the world's largest software company.

You should tell Apple to stop referring to the "arsenic free glass" that they use in their iMac screens then.

. Yes, it is an LCD, they do technically contain glass -safety glass that is surrounded by assorted films that that pretty much mean they aren't going to cause injury if it falls on the floor.

He was reviewing the iMac!!! FFS! He was comparing the design of the NEW iMac to the OLD iMac and saying that this particular aspect of the design change worried him.

Except it was baseless, and he did not attack monitors of PCs. Seems like Apple is singled out.

It would have been completely irrelevant (and also redundant) to add "of course, this criticism also applies to any PC manufacturer who makes a similar model!!" Only the dedicated Mac-zeolot would think otherwise. OF COURSE it is true of any machine that has that design. The review doesn't say "OMG don't buy this killer-Mac!!! It will hunt you down and kill you in your sleep!!!!" It says "here's this one aspect of the design change that worries me." Again, only genuine True Believers could work themselves up into a froth about that. The proof of that being that there are lots of people out there spreading the word about the dangers of large flat screen TVs, and nobody calls them "TV-haters" or "part of the Anti-Panasonic crowd" or what have you.

The only frothing I see is your flaming defense of a very poor review from an extremely biased 'pundit' who is also known for his hatred of much that is not Microsoft (ask Linux users about Enderle). I think my point is made.

 

[Yoink]

And given the fact that there have historically been several predictions of Apple's demise, I'd disagree pretty strongly.

Oh FFS--he claimed he'd "lost count" of the times he'd heard a specific phrase. I made a small joke about the fact that that specific phrase appears exactly twice in a Google search. Explain joke mode: he "lost count" of two items. Har har har har har!

Yes, people have predicted the demise of Apple. However, as you yourself pointed out above, those predictions were NOT examples of "attacks" on Apple. They were reasonable assessments of its market performance. A point I also made in my original post.

I see no good reason why. Since the introduction of the iMac, Apple's market share has nearly doubled on the larger home computing market. That's not entirely due to the iMac (and indeed likely has more to do with the iPod), but to consider it a failure seems to not have much support based on numbers.

Given that we still have not got a single example of someone actually claiming that the iMac was a sales failure, this hypothetical would seem played out. If someone had said "well, sure, it sold well for an Apple, but it didn't ever really threated the PC market" in 2002, say, that would be a reasonable comment which could be construed as a claim of (relative) sales "failure" on the part of the iMac.

I'm not going to bother trying to refute what you've put here, since you're assuming a whole lot of motivations and mental processes that are pretty much unprovable. Apple is a business, and so far a rather successful one in terms of profit and the stock market. Further, Apple's existence actually benefits Microsoft, in that Apple's continued existence makes a strong case against accusations of monopoly, so there's plenty of reason even Apple's biggest "enemy" wants to keep them around from a business perspective. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about the business practices and goals of Apple and its CEO to support your continued contrariness, and there's really no good purpose except for exemplifying the brand loyalty I talked about earlier.

Rather than bothering to try to refute it, I wish you'd try to understand it. Nothing you say above remotely addresses the point I was making. I'm not saying that Apple is not a successful business. I don't say that Apple's existence doesn't benefit Microsoft, I make no assumption about Apple and it's CEO other than the utterly anodyne assumption that he must make rational decisions about which products to develop and which products not to develop based on his assessment of their potential market success. What do you think he bases his assessments on? Astrology?