PC vs MAC

[phyz]

If you're coming to TAM, I'll take you up on that.

You're on, amigo!

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Like I said, that explains their impenetrable lock on the personal computer market, right?

Well, marketing genius can only take you so far. When your product is more expensive than the main competitor (and roughly comparable in terms of quality), genius in marketing can only take you so far.

For me, what turns me off about macos is that I keep getting the feeling that they are all about "We look really good. You are special if you use us. honest, we can do things no other computer can. Use us." Blah.

I'll stick with FreeBSD and XP (for games), thanks.

 

[delphi_ote]

You're on, amigo!

This is going to be one nerdy (but awesome) toast!

See you there!

 

[phyz]

This is going to be one nerdy (but awesome) toast!

You say it like it's almost a bad thing! I'll bring my PBG4, scratched-up 3G iPod and digicam to capture the moment.

 

[tsg]

If it was just their marketing shouldn't their computers have more than a 4% market share? (If I remember correctly it's 4% up from 2% from a few years ago)

To be fair, the iPod didn't have Microsoft to compete with when it first came out. And now Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately entry into the arena is (apparently) so crippled with DRM and a bad interface that I don't see it as being much of a threat.

 

[Ducky]

To be fair, the iPod didn't have Microsoft to compete with when it first came out. And now Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately entry into the arena is (apparently) so crippled with DRM and a bad interface that I don't see it as being much of a threat.

It doesn't need to be, as Microsoft beat Apple to the patent office on the randomized playing software for a personal music device and last I checked now is paid by apple per ipod.


Or was that overturned on appeal?

 

[tsg]

It doesn't need to be, as Microsoft beat Apple to the patent office on the randomized playing software for a personal music device and last I checked now is paid by apple per ipod.

It wouldn't surprise me. But that doesn't change the fact that Macs had significant competition from a company with, shall we say, a very aggressive marketing strategy where iPods did not. The point being that Apple's failure to dominate the PC marketplace doesn't mean their marketing isn't the reason iPods are so successful. The word "iPod" has almost gotten to the point of being used to refer to any MP3 player whether or not it's made by Apple (a la "Band-Aid","Jell-O","Hoover",etc).

Or was that overturned on appeal?

That would surprise me.

 

[delphi_ote]

It doesn't need to be, as Microsoft beat Apple to the patent office on the randomized playing software for a personal music device and last I checked now is paid by apple per ipod.

Not to just bash Microsoft, but I'm over here trying to think of the last honest to His Noodliness innovation we could credit the company with. I can't think of a single recent innovation. For all Gates' and Balmer's talk of innovation, their business strategy seems to me to be very conservative.

 

[Ducky]

Not to just bash Microsoft, but I'm over here trying to think of the last honest to His Noodliness innovation we could credit the company with. I can't think of a single recent innovation. For all Gates' and Balmer's talk of innovation, their business strategy seems to me to be very conservative.

I would agree. In fact, I diagree with the patent ruling as it seemed to be too vague and didn't take much into consideration of how the software did what it did.

 

[phyz]

The point being that Apple's failure to dominate the PC marketplace doesn't mean their marketing isn't the reason iPods are so successful.

And maybe, just maybe, they do have a product that is superior to the competition.

I see a lot of iPod bashing. But no one ever seems willing to put an alternate product under the microscope. A real product. One that exists. Now.

So lets have it. What's the "killer digital music player" that would rule the market if only the market were a meritocracy? Reveal it for all to see! It will have none of the iPods faults and include the features everyone wants.

What is it?

 

[Darat]

And maybe, just maybe, they do have a product that is superior to the competition.

I see a lot of iPod bashing. But no one ever seems willing to put an alternate product under the microscope. A real product. One that exists. Now.

Yes they do - all the magazines that I read that feature gadget reviews and the like are forever running reviews, sometimes in a particular category a particular iPod wins, other times it doesn't.

So lets have it. What's the "killer digital music player" that would rule the market if only the market were a meritocracy? Reveal it for all to see! It will have none of the iPods faults and include the features everyone wants.

What is it?

Why will it have none of the iPods fault? (By the way which iPod do you mean - after all there are many different iPods and they don't all have the same features...)

 

[Gaspode]

What's wrong with the iPod?

I've just bought an 80GB one. It's very easy to use. And it's really nice and shiny. I polish it every day.

Ok so the battery life isn't too good. And the earphones are rubbish. And I've got RSI from making my thumb go round and round the bloody scroll wheel. And the EQ settings are - weird.

And everytime I press the menu button I end up turning the volume to maximum. Would it have killed Apple to provide a separate volume control?

 

[RayG]

A lot of people buy PCs because they know no different.

Maybe a lot of them buy PCs because they DO know different.

RayG

 

[carlvs]

Maybe a lot of them buy PCs because they DO know different.

And then there are those who go to the trouble of putting together their own PCs based on hardware specs they feel are important, rather than what someone has for decided for them...

When I can do that with a Mac, then we can talk.

 

[tsg]

And maybe, just maybe, they do have a product that is superior to the competition.

I never said that wasn't a possibility. I was simply countering the argument that the relative lack of success of the Mac doesn't eliminate marketing as a reason for the iPod's success.

 

[jimlintott]

Did I miss anything?

Why do you blame MS for wanting us to use their formats, if you don't blame non-MS companies for wanting us to use theirs?

I blame any company that tries to tie thier customers to proprietary file formats for things that should be general purpose like images or documents. It is obviously less of an issue if you have a very specialised application.

In fact my singling out an operating system is a bit of a red herring. (A guy can get carried away on a soap box.) It's really an application issue as the OS only has to understand it's own filesystem. It really doesn't care about data formats. I do think that MS is one of the worst offenders though and I am concerned about people losing data to proprietary file formats. Whether the problem is overblown or even real, time will tell.

A PC can be expensive. In Nov 2005 I bought a new box for $1800 cdn (taxes and shipping in). Just the box, no mouse, keyboard, speakers or monitor. Just a box. It's still more powerful than some new machines.

If I was exchanging files with someone like Teek my first question would be "what format?" So it is partly a user problem. Some users don't know what a file format is so I can't blame them.

As far a standards go. I always send PDF files for most things. I once sent a resume in PDF to a place and they emailed me back asking for it in MS Word. I flamed them that I don't have MS Word and that I despise that piece of crap and wouldn't use it anyway. I also pointed out that their website had an archive of documents all in PDF format and that they had a link to Acroread on the front page of their web site.

I didn't get the job.

Maybe I'm misinformed but I thought that postscript and Latex are the official document formats in the publishing industry. (Special props to plain old text files.)

I don't want an MP3 player.

 

[rockoon]

Well LaTeX is generally used for legacy reasons.

It was the only decent methodology for printing higher math equations and the like for a long long time. The developer of LaTeX is sort of a personal hero of mine (Donald Knuth) so don't think I am at all biased againt it when I say that the time of LaTeX has come and gone. If you still use LaTeX it is probably for compatability reasons and not because its somehow superior to other formats.

In short, LaTeX has become equivilent to a proprietary format because very little new software supports it beyond software specifically written to target that niche market.

PostScript, and now PDF, is the standard.

The only time there is ever an arguement about proprietary standards is when competiting formats actualy have a decent share of support (such as GIF vs PCX) and various software does not agree on the prefered format.

If MSWORD's document format was used by all then there would be no beef. Obviously there are competing word processor formats and most non-MS software does not support it... so there is a beef. A beef that is really just a cry for help because there isnt a standard but there very well should be.

The same is true of MAC vs PC. There should be a standard. Unfortunately, Apple fans seem to think that their minority voice should win out.

 

[phyz]

Yes they do - all the magazines that I read that feature gadget reviews and the like are forever running reviews, sometimes in a particular category a particular iPod wins, other times it doesn't.

Why will it have none of the iPods fault? (By the way which iPod do you mean - after all there are many different iPods and they don't all have the same features...)

I read that whole post and didn't see the name of the "player better than the iPod."

It's great sport to bash whatever's in the spotlight. Put an iPod there and people can bash it. Put Player X in the spotlight, and people can bash it as much (if not moreso).

Thus the iPod haters never mention the name of their preferred player.

BTW, I do like the new avatar, Darat; the old one gave me nightmares.

 

[tsg]

I read that whole post and didn't see the name of the "player better than the iPod."

It's great sport to bash whatever's in the spotlight. Put an iPod there and people can bash it. Put Player X in the spotlight, and people can bash it as much (if not moreso).

Thus the iPod haters never mention the name of their preferred player.

First, from a logical standpoint, that there doesn't appear to be a better alternative doesn't mean the "best of breed" doesn't suck.

Second, I scarcely think that offering valid criticism of even the best products flaws constitutes "bashing".

Microsoft products have genuine flaws. Yet the first argument out of MS proponents mouths is an accusation of bashing. The same goes for Macs. It's little more than an ad hominem argument. Resorting to the "bashing" argument is no better than bashing itself.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I read that whole post and didn't see the name of the "player better than the iPod."

It's great sport to bash whatever's in the spotlight. Put an iPod there and people can bash it. Put Player X in the spotlight, and people can bash it as much (if not moreso).

Thus the iPod haters never mention the name of their preferred player.

I don't know firsthand what players may be better, as I don't own an mp3 player. That being said, I've often seen people state preferences for other players (Creative Zen, iRiver, et al) over the iPod. This is the first such discussion I've witnessed where preferred players were not mentioned.

Personally, I think mp3s are the work of the devil.