MacWorld SF 2007 - Apple Moves the Earth Again

[phyz]

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

Thank you, Progressquest.

As my RDF dissipates, I grow concerned. The thrust of today's Stevenote was to showcase the iPhone. And he did a great job of it and I am salivating appropriately.

But the combo of dropping "Computer" from the name, no software updates (iLife 07, iWork 07, Leopard)... I suppose that was to cast more light on the iPhone.

But I want iLife 07 and iWork 07. I can see holding back on Leopard for WWDC, but suites should show some progress.

In the meantime, I'll start my iPhone savings account so I'll be ready to go when the iPhone is.

 

[webfusion]

Again, I have to wonder aloud:

Since Apple cannot legally use IPhone as a brand name, why are they?

(Cisco Systems owns that name)

 

[Pirate_Lad]

I use apple because they have outstanding drumstick support.

 

[Unnamed]

Again, I have to wonder aloud:

Since Apple cannot legally use IPhone as a brand name, why are they?

(Cisco Systems owns that name)

They are negotiating the details and a deal will be announced soon:

It is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statements that were distributed to them last night

(source)

 

[Unnamed]

As my RDF dissipates, I grow concerned. The thrust of today's Stevenote was to showcase the iPhone. And he did a great job of it and I am salivating appropriately.

You know what I missed? "The iPhone is available... immediately". Even the iTV is going to be pre-order only.

But the combo of dropping "Computer" from the name, no software updates (iLife 07, iWork 07, Leopard)... I suppose that was to cast more light on the iPhone.

The keynote was quite long already, and the iPhone was quite big for them (they are comparing it to the original Macintosh and the original iPod). It may also be that the major features of Leopard were announced already (I sure hope not), so it won't make sense to talk until it's released.

But I want iLife 07 and iWork 07. I can see holding back on Leopard for WWDC, but suites should show some progress.

Maybe iWork will finally come with a worksheet? I'm really looking forward to something new in that area (like Lotus Improv^WP, which has NeXTSTEP origins), and maybe Apple will deliver it.

 

[Zep]

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.

I've been in the IT industry for over 30 years. Even back then, there was a maxim for EDP (as IT was known then) procurement: No-one ever got fired for buying IBM.

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.

They still do, to a large extent. Most advertising shops still run Apple systems.

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.

It was much of a muchness for a while there. The prime differentiator usually was actually that the IBM/clone was incrementally upgradeable - you could mix and match parts to a certain extent. Whereas the Mac of the day was "fixed" - to get more features, you bought a whole new one.

I really blame Charlie Chaplin.

Do you have any original advertising material from that era? I'll take it if you do!

 

[phyz]

Again, I have to wonder aloud:

Since Apple cannot legally use IPhone as a brand name, why are they?

(Cisco Systems owns that name)

Bidness is bidness. Things get worked out. Nothing to break a sweat over.

Read on, if there's a chance you might lose sleep over it. Or count sheep. Whichever is more soporific for you.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2372

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

Notice the smiley.

Oh, wait, someone already claimed that cheaper will win out over better...
But not when it disconfirms your preconceived notions about macs. Gotcha.

You can call them preconceived, if you like. I do note that you don't complain to those with preconceived notions about Macs (in a positive sense) and preconceived notions about PCs (in a negative sense).

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?

Market share is not the same as popularity. You don't necessarily buy a product because you like it, but because it gets the job done. With beer, it is probably because of taste, but could also be because of massive marketing efforts. We know that we can sell a product by overflooding the scenery with ads.

With Operating Systems, it's different. People aren't sold on what they should like, but what gets the job done. With Windows, you have an incrediby wide range of products, both software and hardware, from a wide range of suppliers. You have a lot of choice. With Macs, you have what Apple tells you you need.

I forget--am I right or wrong here?

If Intel Macs merge the best of two worlds, it should be a winner. Yet, it isn't.

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.

Yes, it is. Because what we have been offered are numbers completely without any reference. 88%? No source. #4? No source, other than from a guy whose interest it is to boost his own products.

Calling that fishy is indeed a marvelous example of skepticism.

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

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

Why do you take these numbers at face value?

I've been in the IT industry for over 30 years. Even back then, there was a maxim for EDP (as IT was known then) procurement: No-one ever got fired for buying IBM.

That's very true. While I'm not as ancie....didn't start out as early in the business as you, IBM was always the safe bet.

They still do, to a large extent. Most advertising shops still run Apple systems.

The advantage came from the graphics applications which you could tailor-make, because you knew exactly what processor you were writing for. So, naturally, you got superior applications.

While that was true once, it isn't anymore. Whatever you can do on a Mac, you can do on a PC, but with much more choice.

Isn't that supposed to be a good thing for the consumer? Choice? You get 25 different brands of decaf, 36 different brands of cereals, so why settle for one brand of computer?

It was much of a muchness for a while there. The prime differentiator usually was actually that the IBM/clone was incrementally upgradeable - you could mix and match parts to a certain extent. Whereas the Mac of the day was "fixed" - to get more features, you bought a whole new one.

Which also meant that, with PCs, you could get the power and applications when you needed them, because of the continuous development of both components and applications. With Macs, you took...dare I say it?... quantum leaps, years apart.

 

[Mercutio]

You can call them preconceived, if you like. I do note that you don't complain to those with preconceived notions about Macs (in a positive sense) and preconceived notions about PCs (in a negative sense).

What you ought to note is that I complain about someone cherry-picking data; choosing a measure that fits his example, but dismissing the same measure when disconfirming instances are shown. I use both Macs and PCs.

Market share is not the same as popularity. You don't necessarily buy a product because you like it, but because it gets the job done. With beer, it is probably because of taste, but could also be because of massive marketing efforts. We know that we can sell a product by overflooding the scenery with ads.

With Operating Systems, it's different. People aren't sold on what they should like, but what gets the job done. With Windows, you have an incrediby wide range of products, both software and hardware, from a wide range of suppliers. You have a lot of choice. With Macs, you have what Apple tells you you need.

What you are talking about here is the difference between the central and peripheral routes in persuasive communication ("selling the steak" vs. "selling the sizzle". Your mistake is in thinking that only the central route is applicable in Operating Systems. It is understandable that a computer programmer would feel this way, but the popular ads themselves (Charlie Chaplin? 1984? Mac v PC?) have tended to take the peripheral route. (Are there any data on what percentage of PC users actually do modify their hardware? Does the average computer owner take advantage of the wider range of choice? )

Your comment "with beer it is probably because of taste" is actually a testable question; just as the audio-woos assure us that monster cables are bought "probably because of sound" (scare quotes, not anyone in particular), we could test whether the average beer-drinker can distinguish Carlberg from Bud Lite. Or any number of beers from one another. Note, with this question, it is the average drinker, and the average computer user--the ones driving the sales numbers--and not the "experts". (Although even self-described experts may have difficulty with the beer test.) (interesting taste test here--double blind, yes, but they forgot to control for order of presentation; the winners were all near the end. Coincidence?)

Ah, here's a place that tests double-blind...

Our scientifically conducted blind beer tastings have turned up some surprising and unexpected results:

none of our testers could reliably identify their “favourite” beer.
when they unknowingly tasted their “favourite” beer, testers consistently rated it poorly, using terms such as “below average”, “bland”, and “mediocre”.
The beers we rated unanimously as the best were definitely not beers we’d typically drink. The conclusion, therefore, is simple and obvious:

Most people drink their “favourite” beer for reasons other than taste!

The real reasons?

Brand recognition - We assume that a well-known brand that is constantly promoted is a quality beer.
Image - Drinking a certain brand of beer suits the image and personality we like to project.
Peer pressure - We tend to drink the same beer as others in an attempt to fit in.
Habit and familiarity - People are creatures of habit, and drinking the same beer over and over again creates comfort in familiarity.
Cost - We may choose a beer because it is “on special” or because we feel it offers the best quality for the price.
Health reasons - We drink calorie-reduced beers in the context of weight control.
Alcohol content - We choose beers with reduced alcohol content to avoid drink[sic] driving.

If Intel Macs merge the best of two worlds, it should be a winner. Yet, it isn't.

No; if Intel Macs merge the best of two worlds, and choices are made purely on those features, it should increase its market share. If, as with beer and cars, there are more factors to be considered (the list above isn't bad--Brand recognition, Image, Peer pressure, Habit and familiarity, Cost, ...Health reasons and alcohol content? Ok, so it's not a perfect list), then people will be able to make a living trying to figure out how to sell both products.

 

[Wudang]

Merc, I have to point out that the operational definition of "beer" in the referenced experts is what is more accurately referred to as week-kneed carbonated urine.
With the exception of Pilsner Urquell which is quite decent. I doubt anyone mistakes Bud lite for Theakston's Old Peculier.

 

[Upchurch]

I will be getting an iPhone. It will replace three different mobile devices I now carry, but there are three things I would like to see happen first:

1. They will have to release the second generation. I played early adopter with Vista and am now a bit gun shy.
2. They will have to add more hard drive space, at least up to 20 gig. I use my iPod as a back up device and 8 gig isn't going to do the job.
3. I would like to see them offer more carriers than cingular, but that isn't a deal breaker.

I think it looks incredible.

 

[phyz]

With Macs, you took...dare I say it?... quantum leaps, years apart.

Wait. OS X has undergone significant upgrades in recent years: 10.2 Jaguar, 10.3 Panther, 10.4 Tiger and is on the verge of 10.5 Leopard.

Windows has had...Service Pack 2?

Oh, Vista is coming up. Quantum leap (with many copied OS X features). Years apart from Windows.

The tirades about how Macs can't be upgraded demonstrate ignorance of the facts. First, Macs are born cherried out, top shelf. No need to upgrade because you start at the top. Second, you *can* upgrade them! I have personally upgraded hard drives, CPU's, ports, and RAM.

 

[webfusion]

Bidness is bidness. Things get worked out. Nothing to break a sweat over.

Read on, if there's a chance you might lose sleep over it. Or count sheep. Whichever is more soporific for you.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2372

I was tossing and turning all night, because I just couldn't find any publicly-announced confirmation that an agreement was in fact reached on Tuesday.

If you happen to find a press release from either Cisco or Apple that announces they have come to terms on the use of the iPhone name, I would appreciate seeing it. So far, my searches for that have turned up nothing.

Meanwhile, I'm counting flying pigs.

 

[CFLarsen]

What you ought to note is that I complain about someone cherry-picking data; choosing a measure that fits his example, but dismissing the same measure when disconfirming instances are shown.

I'm not. Read and understand what I say.

I use both Macs and PCs.

I hope you're happy.

What you are talking about here is the difference between the central and peripheral routes in persuasive communication ("selling the steak" vs. "selling the sizzle". Your mistake is in thinking that only the central route is applicable in Operating Systems. It is understandable that a computer programmer would feel this way, but the popular ads themselves (Charlie Chaplin? 1984? Mac v PC?) have tended to take the peripheral route. (Are there any data on what percentage of PC users actually do modify their hardware? Does the average computer owner take advantage of the wider range of choice? )

Oh, no, no, no. No. It isn't that simple.

When the PC broke through, it was very much through companies, and not through the general public. Companies wanted to move some of their tasks away from the mainframe world, and the PC fitted them perfectly - in its own, budding-minuscule way. They could only do this with the PC, because, as much as the Mac offered an integrated system, it didn't offer a versatile range of options, which companies needed.

Your comment "with beer it is probably because of taste" is actually a testable question; just as the audio-woos assure us that monster cables are bought "probably because of sound" (scare quotes, not anyone in particular), we could test whether the average beer-drinker can distinguish Carlberg from Bud Lite. Or any number of beers from one another. Note, with this question, it is the average drinker, and the average computer user--the ones driving the sales numbers--and not the "experts". (Although even self-described experts may have difficulty with the beer test.) (interesting taste test here--double blind, yes, but they forgot to control for order of presentation; the winners were all near the end. Coincidence?)

Again, it isn't a question of the average PC user as in a "home computer". Yes, I'm old enough to remember that term. I am talking about how the PC broke through to the general market: The companies moved some of their computing business to PCs, which caused people to have a computer at home.

No; if Intel Macs merge the best of two worlds, and choices are made purely on those features, it should increase its market share. If, as with beer and cars, there are more factors to be considered (the list above isn't bad--Brand recognition, Image, Peer pressure, Habit and familiarity, Cost, ...Health reasons and alcohol content? Ok, so it's not a perfect list), then people will be able to make a living trying to figure out how to sell both products.

Yeah. But with PCs, it was, has been, and will always be, a question of getting the job done. Only geeks are interested in what happens under the hood. Most users simply want a computer that works. Companies outside the IT business don't really want to build an IT section within their organization. They have too many other things to do than become even rudimentary knowledgable about how the innards of a computer works, and why.

Now, given that, people should choose Macs, because they sure get a ready-steady-go solution. Yet, they don't. And why? Because they know that, despite the many problems that follow a choice of having many choices, people want choices. They don't want to wait years until the next upgrade comes, because they know their businesses have to keep up with the daily - heck, often hourly - changes of business. They have to be able to fine-tune the technology they use, in order to meet the demands of their own market.

They didn't get that with Macs. They still can't get that with Macs.

Merc, I have to point out that the operational definition of "beer" in the referenced experts is what is more accurately referred to as week-kneed carbonated urine.
With the exception of Pilsner Urquell which is quite decent. I doubt anyone mistakes Bud lite for Theakston's Old Peculier.

Bud Lite. Why? The existentialist question Sartre never asked.

 

[CFLarsen]

They will have to release the second generation. I played early adopter with Vista and am now a bit gun shy.

Being on the cutting edge leaves a lot of blood...

Wait. OS X has undergone significant upgrades in recent years: 10.2 Jaguar, 10.3 Panther, 10.4 Tiger and is on the verge of 10.5 Leopard.

Windows has had...Service Pack 2?

Oh, Vista is coming up. Quantum leap (with many copied OS X features). Years apart from Windows.

No, no, no. There are constant upgrades to Windows, if people bother to check.

The tirades about how Macs can't be upgraded demonstrate ignorance of the facts. First, Macs are born cherried out, top shelf. No need to upgrade because you start at the top. Second, you *can* upgrade them! I have personally upgraded hard drives, CPU's, ports, and RAM.

Let's go with that, then. So, why aren't more people buying them?

We have a fantastic solution. Yet, sales are not...impressive. Why?

 

[Ian Osborne]

No, no, no. There are constant upgrades to Windows, if people bother to check.

Ditto OS X. Now go and catch a virus...

 

[Mercutio]

When the PC broke through, it was very much through companies, and not through the general public. [snip]

Again, it isn't a question of the average PC user as in a "home computer". Yes, I'm old enough to remember that term. I am talking about how the PC broke through to the general market: The companies moved some of their computing business to PCs, which caused people to have a computer at home.

In other words, the contingencies in effect in the early years of "home computing" were vastly different than what they currently are.

Your question about market share now is best answered by looking at contingencies then. There is a lot of inertia involved; being a superior product now may not be enough to overcome an early lead. Ask the Betamax people.

All in all, I humbly suggest that market share is a very strange operational definition of "superiority", because it depends on so much more than the features and/or capabilities of the product itself. You see this yourself when it comes to beer and cars (but not PCs, it seems). Of course, any operational definition is incomplete, and of course any concept may be operationalized in many different fashions. Take the Consumer Reports ratings as an example. They first list the possible factors that individuals might need to take into account when buying a computer (price, reliability, warranties, processor speed, display, OS), discuss the factors involved in each that are important (for OS, they note that Windows has more programs, but also more viruses and spyware), then rank by performance and features. They then separate different categories, on the assumption that people who are after a "workhorse" are looking at different features than those after a "budget model". You may disagree with their operationalization, but at least it is clearly spelled out, and when possible dissected into component factors (so that you can emphasize the things that are most important to you).

In the recent (sept. 06, nov 06) reviews of laptops, in every category that contains an Apple model, that laptop is at the top of the category. In most but not all cases, it is significantly more expensive. Which is "superior"? Depends on your operational definition, of course. How much is performance worth in dollars? (I also admit I just grabbed the first two issues I could find--the reports on desktops may very well go the opposite direction, I do not know.)

Consumer Reports prides themselves on cutting through the sizzle and rating the steak. They do not accept advertizing, and buy all their products off the shelves (no free demo products). If your operational definition of market share is a [legitimate] appeal to popularity, then this is a [legitimate] appeal to authority.

So...when you say

If Intel Macs merge the best of two worlds, it should be a winner. Yet, it isn't.

your definition of "winner" is dependent on your choice of operational definition. By Consumer Reports' definition, they are winners.

 

[phyz]

If you happen to find a press release from either Cisco or Apple that announces they have come to terms on the use of the iPhone name, I would appreciate seeing it. So far, my searches for that have turned up nothing.

We've got 'til June. No rush.

 

[phyz]

No, no, no. There are constant upgrades to Windows, if people bother to check.

C'mon; hourly security patches don't count as upgrades. But since Windows ships with all windows and doors unlocked and open...

 

[CFLarsen]

So...when you say
your definition of "winner" is dependent on your choice of operational definition. By Consumer Reports' definition, they are winners.

You give the answer yourself: PCs are for those who are after a workhorse, or for those who are after a budget model. Or a game machine. Or a graphics station. Or an extended typewriter. Or a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.

Whatever your needs are, you can modify a PC to suit you. With a Mac, you have to buy the whole shebang, whether you want it or not.

C'mon; hourly security patches don't count as upgrades. But since Windows ships with all windows and doors unlocked and open...

Where did you get that definition from? What is an "upgrade" in your dictionary?