[APPLE] "Switch" One Year Later: No One Switched

[Gunnar]

hey, how about some objective analysis here, this is such a pissing contest. I switched to a mac, and other than the money aspect, I like it better than any PC.

Aside from Divx, I dont think I ever test the systems capabilities...

 

[Acanthus]

Windows 2003 Server gaining market share

There isnt any modern accurate market research on how far ahead MS is in the desktop market. But i'd wager 90%+ to be MS.

 

[addragyn]

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Gunnar
hey, how about some objective analysis here...

...I switched to a mac, and other than the money aspect, I like it better than any PC.

Is that what you call an objective analysis??

 

[Gunnar]

I guess that was more or less in response to the fact that people are posting all sorts of garbage(yep, you got me, wasnt objective, but more or less a mini-mini rant). Really, I dont understand why people are so uptight and self concious about the PC. And its not just the posters around here, which range from mild to really really sad.

The media is so twisted around these days, I find it hard to believe anything that is being said. And there are outlets that have their own personal interests to serve as well. If you want objective, then take me as an example. I used to build PCs for others, and now I have moved on to a Mac, and several of my friends liked what I had and moved on too. I wont say people didnt switch away from the mac, I cant even say that the numbers are equal. But I can say that Apple's image has improved dramatically, and people that werent thinking of buying mac before are thinking about it now. Maybe that is why all the fanboys have their dander up.

But what I hate the most is people calling the mac a machine for idiots, used by idiots. Thats where I demand some objectivity. I dont judge you because you use a PC, in fact, I dont even hold it against you. My reasons were simple, I just wanted a machine that works without hassles, and Im a computer programmer with a bachelors in computer science and a masters in computer engineering from an Ivy League university.

Believe me, there will always be people flipping back and forth. There was a time when Apple had a 30% marketshare, I dont doubt it can return there. From the looks of it, this may be their best chance in years, especially with windows coming loaded with DRM...

 

[MadRat]

I like the Apple=Sega theory. I'd rather see OS X on a PC than try to wade through the endless forms of Linux. Heck, this sort of move could be the spark to ultimately re-unify the Linux market. Apple programs are easier to install and there is no DLL HELL with them. Its the one big kudo I see for Linux, self contained program folders. Microsoft's theory of shared libraries is as outdated as the idea that nobody needs more than 640K of memory...

 

[Eug]

I like the Apple=Sega theory. I'd rather see OS X on a PC than try to wade through the endless forms of Linux.

I disagree totally. The whole point of Apple's model is they make BOTH the hardware and the OS. Thus there are many less compatibility issues, etc. You buy a Mac and you KNOW everything on it is going to work if it's stock. They same cannot be said when you buy whitebox PCs and sometimes even name brand hardware.

Why doesn't anyone understand this? Their prices have stayed essentially the same for years. They will not lower prices.

Actually prices have dropped significantly in the last couple of years. First with the laptops and now with the towers. For example, a dual 2.0 GHz G5 costs much LESS than a similarly configured dual Xeon. (I tried doing the config myself at Dell. The Dell was ~$1000 more for the dual 3.06.)

Could someone please explain the price to me? I realize Apple machines are generally more expensive and I accept that as an Apple owner, but since everyone keeps brining up the Opteron and such, wouldn't the Apple be a better deal? If not, I'm very interested in knowing whats up!

Yep, you did the same spec I did, but with the Opteron. And you reached the same conclusion. Apple does not have a bargain basement computer, and their low end machines aren't always extremely cheap. But at the high end, they are now actually cheaper than comparable x86 products.

I switched to a Mac. I bought the 17 Inch Powerbook. It was one awesome machine. In fact I will say it is the best laptop I have ever used or seen. I have owned/had (from work mind you) many laptops (Dell D600, Thinkpad 600X/E, Thinkpad 390E, A20P, T30, Latitude 810c, Inspiron 5100, and some others I can't remember).

But despite how much I liked it, I just could not justify its cost. In fact, I just delivered it to its new owner yesterday. And right now I am very wealthy once again. I am computerless at the moment, but looking to build a sweet system for 1/3 the cost of the Powerbook. In the end it was just too luxurous and I did not like having so much many tied up in a computer. I would rather have a fast, cheap PC and spend the leftovers (that would have been used for a mac) on other toys

Yeah, the price of admission for some Mac stuff ain't cheap, but you sure as h3ll enjoy the ride.

That said, the Mac PowerBooks are very competitive, IF you use the features. I enjoy having DVI and powered Firewire, something I can't get on an x86 laptop. Strangely enough though, similarly configured IBM laptops cost more than the PowerBooks. Dells cost less but are not in the same league. (I had a Spectre which Dell rebadged as the Inspiron 5000, and several of my colleagues have the Inspiron 8100.)

It seems a majority of the apple users I have seen on this forum appear to be Powerbook users not necessarily apple desktop owners. Just a small observation. Not sure what it means, per se...but thought I'd toss it out there...

That's me. I used to have an iBook but went to the more powerful PowerBook. I never got a desktop because I DID think they were overpriced for the performance. That has now changed with the G5 so I'll hopefully get one next year (and my Tualatin on BX is getting long in the tooth anyways).

Now for my last off-topic Toyota post/rebuttal:

(1) You didn't drive a '03 Corolla. You drove a '02 model. BIG DIFFERENCE. The '02 model was based on a 5-year old platform. The '03 is an all new model which is significantly larger.
(2) All of those features that you mentioned about the Prius are in the quoted price of $15,076 for the Corolla LE except for automatic climate control and outside temperature guage and engine monitor (not important anyway on a gasoline engined car).
(3) Build quality. I've been in both, and the '03 Corolla is DEFINITELY ahead of the Prius in build quality and interior materials. Panel gaps are smaller and the plastics are of higher quality. Can you get leather in a Prius? Didn't think so. The Corolla is built to nearly the same specifications as Lexus models. I think the difference is obvious:
(4) Corolla LE comes with alloy 15" wheels.
(5) Interior space. The '03 Corolla LE is larger in EVERY interior dimension (except rear hip room) than the Prius including cargo capacity which it tops by over 2 cubes.

1) Maybe, but you're comparing a new '03 Corolla with the old Prius design. My Prius is from 2001 (which is the same design as 2002 and 2003). Perhaps you should compare a 2004 Corolla with a 2004 Prius hatchback, both of which are out in a few months. Pic.
2) Note that on mine cruise control came free - not an option. And you missed the anti-theft system and automatic transmission. (Oh and an automatic transmission is usually not as nice as the continuous variable transmission on the Prius). Tech geeks: for the 2004 Prius you can even get BlueTooth (which is a bit odd if you ask me). You can also get a DVD based navigation system among other things. The smart entry/start is kind of interesting too:

A "Smart Entry" and "Smart Start" feature allows keyless entry and keyless startup. As the driver reaches for the door handle, an on-board sensor will recognize the signal from a key in his pocket and automatically unlock the doors. Since the driver has already been security-cleared to enter the vehicle, he can leave the fob in his pocket, push a start button located on the dash, and drive away.

3) Perhaps, I dunno. I've never sat in one though so I reserve judgement.
5) The 2003 Corolla is definitely bigger than previous model I drove. The 2004 Prius is increasing in size too though and is bigger than the 2003/2004 Corolla. The 2004 Pruis is a mid-size, not a compact.

2003 Corolla (and I think 2004)
Head - 39.1/37.1
Shoulder - 53.1/53.5
Leg - 41.3/35.4
Pass. vol. - 90.3
Lugg. cap. - 13.6
Weight - 2590 lbs
Automatic fuel econ - 29/38

2004 Prius specs
Head - 39.3/37.1
Shoulder - 55.1/52.9
Leg - 40.1/37.2
Pass. vol - 94
Lugg. cap - 16
Weight - 2855
CVT fuel econ. - 55 combined

anyone know when the 04 prius is coming out?

Fall 2003. I will hopefully get one in summer 2004 (or maybe in 2005). The Audi TT looks damn sweet though... My neighbour has one. Too impractical though.

2004 is gonna be expensive... New Prius and a new dual G5.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I like the Apple=Sega theory. I'd rather see OS X on a PC than try to wade through the endless forms of Linux.

Originally posted by: Eug
I disagree totally. The whole point of Apple's model is they make BOTH the hardware and the OS. Thus there are many less compatibility issues, etc. You buy a Mac and you KNOW everything on it is going to work if it's stock. They same cannot be said when you buy whitebox PCs and sometimes even name brand hardware.

Thats why they have the labels "Mac-OS X compatible"

 

[Cadaver]

I was also a huge Mac user, but over the last several months - 1 yr, I've been enjoying the speed-bang-for-the-buck factor of PC hardware.

It would have cost me nearly $1000 to upgrade my Dual 800MHz PowerMac G4 to an up-to-date dual 1.4GHz speed (I'd never use a single-processor desktop Mac if I could avoid it). And, yes, the Mac needs it. The OS X GUI on the Dual 800 is pretty pokey compared to the current crop of machines.

On the other hand, it cost me less than $200 to upgrade my AMD-based PC to a system running at 2.3GHz on a nearly 400MHz bus. I know megahertz isn't everything, but for every-day work, the sheer clock-speed of my PC makes up for the clock-efficiency of my old G4.

Macs in my experience are far less trouble to maintain than a PC system in terms of OS housekeeping. My PC, knock on wood, has been trouble-free. But I've spent so much time helping neighbors with seemingly self-destructing PCs that it isn't funny. But for people who can deal with the problems that crop-up, the bang-for-the-buck of a PC is hard to beat.

And, since I absolutely live in Microsoft Office, the performace of OfficeXP exceeds Office for MacOS X significantly on all but the most expensive Macs (where I believe the gap narrows to the point of relative insignificance). I'm an academic, and PowerPoint, Word and EndNote are my life. And I'm also beginning to appreciate the ability to walk in to any computer store and buy any piece of software without hunting for a MacOS X compatible solution.

 

[Eug]

Macs in my experience are far less trouble to maintain than a PC system in terms of OS housekeeping. My PC, knock on wood, has been trouble-free. But I've spent so much time helping neighbors with seemingly self-destructing PCs that it isn't funny. But for people who can deal with the problems that crop-up, the bang-for-the-buck of a PC is hard to beat.

Yep, for the tinkerer/enthusiast crowd, the value of a PC box is good. However, I have been growing less patient with tinkering, since my free time has been decreasing.

And, since I absolutely live in Microsoft Office, the performace of OfficeXP exceeds Office for MacOS X significantly on all but the most expensive Macs (where I believe the gap narrows to the point of relative insignificance). I'm an academic, and PowerPoint, Word and EndNote are my life.

PowerPoint and Word definitely are slower on the Mac. I don't often do 160 page documents in Word though, thus for my needs the difference is not significant on my GHz TiBook. PowerPoint seems a bit slower, but is good now on my TiBook with the most recent updates from Microsoft. If I had to get a 500 MHz laptop for Office though, I'd probably go x86.

However, I've started using Keynote on my TiBook for some presentations, simply because it looks more professional than PowerPoint v.X or PowerPoint XP and is simpler to use, and fortunately can import and export PowerPoint presentations. I do stick with PowerPoint if many people are going to be editing the presentation, but if it's only me giving it I'll just do it in Keynote and export a .ppt or .pdf or something if my audience needs a printed copy.

I haven't used Endnote on the Mac, but it exists. Dunno if it's good/bad/fast/slow.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: GL
<snip>
I don't think these numbers are bad at all. In fact, I think they're promising if they're taken in context. A substantial number of Mac users were fully aware that Apple was about to release the next-best-thing and were hesitant to upgrade until such a product became available. At a microscopic level, this sort of thing happens on a seasonal basis when sales plummet before anticipated release dates. IMHO, the past year was an extended version of the pre-release-date syndrome. Even to die-hard Mac freaks, this past year it became completely obvious that the G4 platform was going nowhere fast and was outdated. Nobody wanted to purchase a PowerMac line unless they really needed to. To a lesser extent, the unavailability of software titles like Quark also kept a significant portion of Apple's customers from purchasing new hardware. However, look at Apple's laptop sales and the figures are quite positive.
<snip>

Ahahaha good way to try to deflect the painful point of the article.

Apple tried to gain market share. Apple lost market share. That's bad, and it's that simple.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: addragyn
How exactly is Apple's "useage share" eroding? According to Google's zeitgeist it's been in the same 3% - 4% range for the past few years.

Oh of course some ad-hoc "zeitgeist" is a must be more correct than professional research firm IDCs conclusions that Macintosh market share has fallen to 2.1%.

I'd think an "Ace Reporter" could do a little ace fact checking!

Hey Mr. Pot i suggest you not consider anonymous articles written with no scientific method "facts".

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: grant2

Originally posted by: addragyn
How exactly is Apple's "useage share" eroding? According to Google's zeitgeist it's been in the same 3% - 4% range for the past few years.

Oh of course some ad-hoc "zeitgeist" is a must be more correct than professional research firm IDCs conclusions that Macintosh market share has fallen to 2.1%.

It's great you want to correct people but, market share is not the same thing as userbase. Or for that matter the "useage share" that the topic starter mentioned.

BTW Google's Zeitgeist (why in quotes?) is by definition anything but ad hoc. And ad hoc does not use a dash or hyphen.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: addragyn
It's great you want to correct people but, market share is not the same thing as userbase. Or for that matter the "useage share" that the topic starter mentioned.

The article says "market share." Play semantics if you wish, the words "useage base" didn't appear until you brought it up, and "userbase" didn't appear until 10 replies after THAT.

BTW Google's Zeitgeist (why in quotes?) is by definition anything but ad hoc. And ad hoc does not use a dash or hyphen.

You're correct, I should have said "inadequate for the task" not "ad hoc". I used "zeitgeist" in quotes because I did not know the meaning of the word. Again, these are (legitimate) semantics. The point remains is that apple has gone backwards in it's goals, not forward.

(edit: cleaned up excess quotes)

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=39614

A year after Apple launched its high-profile "Switch" ad campaign, the company has nothing but lost market share, fewer users, a dwindling third-party developer pool, and, of course, the lovely Janie Porche, who saved Christmas. But as companies like Dell, HP, and IBM continue to distance themselves, sales-wise, from Apple, it's become increasingly clear than nothing the company does--ad campaigns, cool portable MP3 players, a rock-solid operating system, and even the debatably fastest PC on earth--is going to reverse its eroding usage share. With over 1 billion people using PCs vs. just 25 million using Macs, the numbers sort of speak for themselves. I think the big question now is whether Apple can remain viable as a niche player in the market. My gut feeling is that they can, but then I was an Amiga fan years ago, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

So what exactly is trying to be proven here anyways? I don't understand the motive for this whole debate. Seems like a stupid argument.

<insert pro-apple BS here>

<insert anti-apple BS here>

<insert pro-apple BS here>

<insert anti-apple BS here>

<insert pro-apple BS here>

<insert anti-apple BS here>

<insert pro-apple BS here>

<insert anti-apple BS here>

<insert pro-apple BS here>

<insert anti-apple BS here>

 

[acemcmac]

Yeah... I switched... from slow, inflexibe and expensive macs to cheap, fast, custom built pc's.... :beer:

The faster apple dumps its hardware line in favor of pure OS competition via MARKLAR (OSX on x86), the faster the Mac OS will return to a hard drive near me

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
The faster apple dumps its hardware line in favor of pure OS competition via MARKLAR (OSX on x86), the faster the Mac OS will return to a hard drive near me

And it will stumble and require hand-holding much like Windows does. Ever think that the reason Macs, in general, are more stable and have fewer conflicts is because the closed hardware system allows developers to better tailor their prodcuts (be they hardware or software) to work in the Mac environment?


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: grant2

Originally posted by: addragyn
How exactly is Apple's "useage share" eroding? According to Google's zeitgeist it's been in the same 3% - 4% range for the past few years.

Oh of course some ad-hoc "zeitgeist" is a must be more correct than professional research firm IDCs conclusions that Macintosh market share has fallen to 2.1%.

I'd think an "Ace Reporter" could do a little ace fact checking!

Hey Mr. Pot i suggest you not consider anonymous articles written with no scientific method "facts".

Yer data is old.

LINK

"Market research firm International Data Corp.'s (IDC) latest research numbers indicate a small increase in Apple's market share in the United States. For the current quarter (Q1, 2002) IDC shows Apple as the number six computer maker with a 3.48 percent market share. This is an increase of 0.4 points over Q4 2001 and a 0.25 point increase year over year. Worldwide, Apple is in ninth place with a 2.4 percent market share."


Lethal

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: acemcmac
The faster apple dumps its hardware line in favor of pure OS competition via MARKLAR (OSX on x86), the faster the Mac OS will return to a hard drive near me

And it will stumble and require hand-holding much like Windows does. Ever think that the reason Macs, in general, are more stable and have fewer conflicts is because the closed hardware system allows developers to better tailor their prodcuts (be they hardware or software) to work in the Mac environment?


Lethal

Not to mention how well BEOS did on x86 or how well LoTD is doing now.

 

[acemcmac]

More stable and fewer conflicts? I?ve never heard a bigger raft of BS in my entire time here on Anand!

The systems I am on right now has NEVER had a hardware freeze.... Just ask a Mac user about the "Spinning beach ball of death"

OSX is one of the shortest operating systems in the world in terms of hardware reach back! Only Macs made within the last two years... and only the ones with clocks over 700mhzG4 (even higher G3) can run Jaguar at ANY tolerable speed. How would the windows world have been affected if only the top 1/4th of all clock speed systems, less than ten percent point of the previous hardware base, and all over 2000$ at time of purchase could have run XP?

I am the Mac user's worst nightmare...
I am the Jedi of Mac hardware enthusiasts turned to the dark side...
They argue from ignorance.
I argue from experience.
XP PRO OWNS Jaguar... 'nuf said

 

[GoHAnSoN]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
So what exactly is trying to be proven here anyways? I don't understand the motive for this whole debate. Seems like a stupid argument.


<insert anti-apple BS here>

ya, kinda agree.
it's so obvious why no one switched.
it's not point buying expensive mac for consumers , it's for the rich and glamour

 

[buleyb]

The Honda Civic Hybrids are much better than the Prius anyway (and they don't look so butt ugly). My girlfriend has one and avgs 50-55mpg.

And Eug, why would you buy a hybrid car and "don't generally try too hard to drive to save gas"?

Anyway, market numbers concern me not. I'm a PC/Windows user, and I like the Mac hardware and OS, but I won't make the switch until I can do it cheaper. I just bought a new systems to build yesterday, and $500 for the parts is much better than $3k. Even nice system from Dell won't break that bank with similar specs. They just can't compete with PC prices, and when they do, then they'll have more people than they know what to do with.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
More stable and fewer conflicts? I?ve never heard a bigger raft of BS in my entire time here on Anand!

obviously you haven't been here very long.

In general, yes. Apple comptuers have fewer conflicts and are more stable than Windows/x86 machines. If you tossed OS X into the open hardware x86 world or put XP on a Mac-like closed hardware system then I think both OS's would come out about even. But there are millions of varitations of hardware, firmware, drivers, chipsets, etc., in the Win/x86 world that Windows has to attempt be compatible w/and it's just down right impossible for it to achieve a high level of stability and a low level of conflicts w/some many variables it has to deal with.

I am the Mac user's worst nightmare...
I am the Jedi of Mac hardware enthusiasts turned to the dark side...
They argue from ignorance.
I argue from experience.
XP PRO OWNS Jaguar... 'nuf said

Lethal

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Yer data is old.

You're right, I'm a dummy, and somehow thought my link was for Q1 '03. Duh!