Mac VS. PC

[Amaroque]

Only Apple can make a Mac.

It used to be that only IBM could make a PC (until Phoenix reverse engineered the BIOS). Now there is competition. Any company, or person, can build a PC, and prices are much lower because of it.

 

[barnett25]

Ok, I see what you mean. I guess that just never bothered me.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Only Apple can make a Mac.

It used to be that only IBM could make a PC (until Phoenix reverse engineered the BIOS). Now there is competition. Any company, or person, can build a PC, and prices are much lower because of it.

Apple is not a software company. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make software for its hardware. When Apple let 3rd parites build "clones" it very nearly killed the company. The decision to do that is looked upon as one of the worst in Apple history.


Lethal

 

[Amaroque]

It pretty much killed IBM too. But the PC industry is better off because of it. We now have dozens of company's innovating for us, instead of just one. Two heads are better then one, no?

 

[barnett25]

Innovating? Maybe in buisness practices, but not in technology.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
It pretty much killed IBM too. But the PC industry is better off because of it. We now have dozens of company's innovating for us, instead of just one. Two heads are better then one, no?

Err, IBM is still around and just recently ended it's desktop computer line (IIRC). If Apple didn't kill the clones Apple would've closed it doors years ago. No exageration at all.

No offense but which PC companies are innovating the PC? Dell? Gateway? HP? What killer hardware/software have those companies come up with? Now, there are innovative companies making things that run on x86 machines. But the companies building those machines are on razor thin margins becuase of absurd price wars that are putting companies on the edge of disaster. They have no money for R&D on new products or new tech.

Apple seems to have a good amount of history at being innovative (although not always sucessful). The Newton, the Cube, the iMac, the iPod family, iTunes/iTunes Music Store, OS X, FCP, iLife, industrial design, etc.,. They have also pushed for quicker addoption of tech such as wirless networking, USB and Firewire and have won a Grammy and two Emmy's for their technical contributions to the music and TV industries.

A big reason why Apple is able to do so much of what it does is because they have so much control over their computers.


Lethal

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Actually there is alot of proof. There were alot of links in the topic the last time there was this same debate here. You can find alot through google. Here is one:
http://www.digitalvideoediting...iews/cw_macvspciii.htm

In the other topic there was even an article of Adobe reccomending PC's over MAC's which is pretty sad since Apple uses Adobe products to advertise their MAC's.

I usually don't feed the trollls but...

Nice 2+ year old link there buddy. Now please feel free to go dig up the threads from Nov-Dec 2002 that talked about this article and make your comments there.


Lethal

Sorry for not checking to see how old it was, but I just searched google for an article and posted it. The fact is a PC will perform around the same or even better for alot cheaper price. IF you have a ton of money to spend go ahead and buy a MAC, but I would much rather build myself a PC.

 

[mwmorph]

i second that. since my home pc is internet/gaming pc exclusively. id never go mac.

 

[barnett25]

My PC has a MAC... 00-0B-3C-6A-60-1B

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: barnett25
My PC has a MAC... 00-0B-3C-6A-60-1B

LOL

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Amaroque
It pretty much killed IBM too. But the PC industry is better off because of it. We now have dozens of company's innovating for us, instead of just one. Two heads are better then one, no?

Err, IBM is still around and just recently ended it's desktop computer line (IIRC). If Apple didn't kill the clones Apple would've closed it doors years ago. No exageration at all.

No offense but which PC companies are innovating the PC? Dell? Gateway? HP? What killer hardware/software have those companies come up with? Now, there are innovative companies making things that run on x86 machines. But the companies building those machines are on razor thin margins becuase of absurd price wars that are putting companies on the edge of disaster. They have no money for R&D on new products or new tech.

Apple seems to have a good amount of history at being innovative (although not always sucessful). The Newton, the Cube, the iMac, the iPod family, iTunes/iTunes Music Store, OS X, FCP, iLife, industrial design, etc.,. They have also pushed for quicker addoption of tech such as wirless networking, USB and Firewire and have won a Grammy and two Emmy's for their technical contributions to the music and TV industries.


Lethal

I'm well aware that IBM is still around. But, they almost went under when they lost control of the PC market.

One prime example of innovation... We wouldn't have AMD if IBM still had a lock on the PC market with Intel. There would be no "clones" and therefore no AMD. I happen to think the A64 is pretty damn innovative.

A big reason why Apple is able to do so much of what it does is because they have so much control over their computers.

That's where you and I differ on opinions. I do not believe that one company can do as good a job as say, 20 companies competing.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Amaroque
It pretty much killed IBM too. But the PC industry is better off because of it. We now have dozens of company's innovating for us, instead of just one. Two heads are better then one, no?

Err, IBM is still around and just recently ended it's desktop computer line (IIRC). If Apple didn't kill the clones Apple would've closed it doors years ago. No exageration at all.

No offense but which PC companies are innovating the PC? Dell? Gateway? HP? What killer hardware/software have those companies come up with? Now, there are innovative companies making things that run on x86 machines. But the companies building those machines are on razor thin margins becuase of absurd price wars that are putting companies on the edge of disaster. They have no money for R&D on new products or new tech.

Apple seems to have a good amount of history at being innovative (although not always sucessful). The Newton, the Cube, the iMac, the iPod family, iTunes/iTunes Music Store, OS X, FCP, iLife, industrial design, etc.,. They have also pushed for quicker addoption of tech such as wirless networking, USB and Firewire and have won a Grammy and two Emmy's for their technical contributions to the music and TV industries.


Lethal

I'm well aware that IBM is still around. But, they almost went under when they lost control of the PC market.

One main example of innovation... We wouldn't have AMD if IBM still had a lock on the PC market with Intel. There would be no "clones" and therefore no AMD. I happen to think the A64 is pretty damn innovative.

You are comparing unlike things (Apple and AMD). Like I said before, there are innovative companies making things for x86-based computers, but I strongly question the statement that the companies selling x86 based computers are innovative. Apple is most like Dell or Gateway (a company that sells finsihed computers). It does not make internal computer components (like AMD or IBM or ATi).

A big reason why Apple is able to do so much of what it does is because they have so much control over their computers.

That's where you and I differ on opinions. I do not believe that one company can do as good a job as say, 20 companies competing.

There are many companies competing in the personal computer world. Apple is just one of them. It just happens that Apple competes on more than one front. They compete w/companies like Dell in regards to hardware sales. They compete w/M$ in the "OS war." They compete w/a number of companies in all levels of music, print/gfx, and video/film worlds. They compete w/other online music stores. They compete w/other portable, digital music players. The last thing Apple needs to do is compete w/itself.

The inherent problem w/these types of discussions is there is no easy comparison because there is no other company like Apple.


Lethal

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
Oh and I love users who say "I don't need AV/firewalls/whatever" because I'm careful about what I do.
I suppose you don't use seatbelts either because you're such a good driver? :roll:

The difference here is, I'm safe even if others aren't. Of course I wear a seatbelt. The comparison does not apply.

It's funny, most people who actualy work with security all tend to use AV programs and firewalls.
The ones that don't typically don't know a whole lot about security.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

You are comparing unlike things (Apple and AMD). Like I said before, there are innovative companies making things for x86-based computers, but I strongly question the statement that the companies selling x86 based computers are innovative. Apple is most like Dell or Gateway (a company that sells finsihed computers). It does not make internal computer components (like AMD or IBM or ATi).

My point was that what AMD is today, is a direct result of competition. Dell, Gateway, ect... are just basically PC assemblers. They buy parts, and put them together. Big deal.

I can go on, and on, and say how Intel's prices are lower due to competition with AMD... How MS sucks because they have no strong competition...

The inherent problem w/these types of discussions is there is no easy comparison because there is no other company like Apple.

I won't comment on that. I wrote a long reply, but I have no desire to start a flame war.

 

[hopejr]

I think you're misunderstanding what LethalWolfe said about Apple being like Dell, etc. Apple doesn't make the graphics card, neither does dell, hp, etc. Apple doesn't make the processor, neither do dell, etc. And so on.

Most of the innovative features that are found in PC's originated at Apple anyway (USB, Firewire, etc), but then, when they're put in PC's, they're no longer innovative, because everyone is using them.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

You are comparing unlike things (Apple and AMD). Like I said before, there are innovative companies making things for x86-based computers, but I strongly question the statement that the companies selling x86 based computers are innovative. Apple is most like Dell or Gateway (a company that sells finsihed computers). It does not make internal computer components (like AMD or IBM or ATi).

My point was that what AMD is today, is a direct result of competition. Dell, Gateway, ect... are just basically PC assemblers. They buy parts, and put them together. Big deal.

I can go on, and on, and say how Intel's prices are lower due to competition with AMD... How MS sucks because they have no strong competition...

I agree competition is a very good thing. Which is why I don't understand why you want Apple to commite suicide thus killing the only viable MS and x86 alternatives in desktops. For whatever reason you don't seem to see the x86 world as competition for Apple (or vice versa). Like I said before Apple is competeing against enough other companies they don't need to compete against themselves.

Apple at it's core is, as you put it, a computer assembler. They make their money on hardware sales. The reason the clones almost killed Apple is because the clone makers could sell Mac-compatible computers cheaper than Apple could sell "real" Macs. The cloners didn't have to cover the cost of R&D and software development. The clones didn't contribute anything to the Mac platform they just took massive amounts of money away from Apple (which is the only the Mac platform exists). I don't understand why you think bringing back the clones will be a healthy thing for anyone.


Let's say, for instance, Apple lets the clones come back, gets out of the hardware game and becomes a software only company. What will happen? IMO, first off the software prices will take a serious hike as currently they are very, very cheap (especially the professional video/film apps). Secondly, performance and stability will drop. Why? Because since Apple doesn't have control of the hardware anymore they can't make the integration of software and hardware as tightly anymore. I would guess "Mac platform" computers would start to suffer compatibility issues and errors that current x86 machines do. In a nutshell, many of the biggest reasons for "switching" would no longer exist. So why switch?

Obviously Apple has a closed system in that only their OS only works on Macs, but I think there is a common misconception that Apple is a completly proprietary computer (which it is not). Apple uses IBM and Motorola procs the same way x86 machines use AMD or Intel (heck if AMD or Intel made a killer desktop PPC chip it might end up in a Mac). Apple uses ATi and nVidia gfx cards. Standard HDDs, RAM, and optical drives. Mobos are custom which is uncommon for desktops but not for laptops. Any company is free to make anything for the Mac (it's not like Apple is trying to keep every Mac "Apple only"), but the company hit enough bumps in the past that 3rd parties started to quit developing for the Mac because it stopped being profitable and/or wasn't worth the time/effort. But who's gonna buy a computer that has no software? So Apple started releasing more of it's own software because it had to. And it is dang good software (some fear that it's too good and will actually drive developers away 'cause they don't think they can compete). If Apple's upward swing continues I think we'll see more and more "Mac compatible" stuff starting to come out in the next couple of years.

The inherent problem w/these types of discussions is there is no easy comparison because there is no other company like Apple.

I won't comment on that. I wrote a long reply, but I have no desire to start a flame war.

Civil discussion of opposing POV's is healthy. If this was gonna end up a flame war it woulda been there by now.

My point when saying that about Apple wasn't because I see Apple as some uber-perfect company. It was meant to be taken at face value. Honestly, what other company besides Apple does hardware, OS, and a wide variety of software all under one roof (not to mention stuff like the iPod and iTMS)? A direct comparison to M$ doesn't fit. A direct comparison to Dell or Gateway or HP doesn't fit. A direct comparison to Avid or Adobe or Pinnacle doesn't fit. A direct comparison to Creative or iRiver or Napster doesn't fit. Yet Apple competes directly w/all these companies and more.


wow... talk about a rant...


Lethal