Will Windows Vista problems plus iPhone, iPod coolness spawn new Mac users?
Summary: San Jose State business prof Randall Stross offers an interesting perspective in today's New York Times:There's now a window of opportunity for Mac (MacBook Pro, iMac, etc.) to cut into Windows PC sales.
San Jose State business prof Randall Stross offers an interesting perspective in today's New York Times:
There's now a window of opportunity for Mac (MacBook Pro, iMac, etc.) to cut into Windows PC sales.
Significantly distilled, here is how this is supposed to play out:
All these millions of delighted iPod users, and now more than a million iPhone users are, presumably, basking in Apple's coolness.
The huge majority (some say 96%-4%) of Windows PC users over Apple users imply that many iPhone and iPod users are also running Windows PCs.
Some of those Windows PC users who are thinking of buying new boxes in the traditionally hectic fourth quarter might be deterred by the accurate perception that all those new Windows Vista machines available for sale don't have a complete roster of pre-loaded device drivers. And, to boot (pun partially intended) , that means going to vendor or third-party sites, searching and hoping for a Vista-compatible driver for your printer or other peripheral.
So, as this goes, you say to yourself:
"I've always (or usually) been a Windows user, but now with Vista getting mixed reviews, I'm ready to consider alternatives. I love my (iPhone, iPod touch, iPod nano, etc.) . Apple seems to have their act together now. So why not go down to the Apple Store and look at some Macs?
I've always been a Windows user and continue to be, but yes, I've broadened my toolset. My MacBook Pro shopping this season has been driven more by a need to do high-def video than any iPhone or iPod perception of coolness. In fact, I don't qualify for Prof. Stross' adaptation scenario. My portable music player is an iRiver and my phone is a BlackBerry.
But maybe you qualify for said scenario? Maybe even a little?
[poll id=138]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
No reason to ever switch to Macs
A PC running Windows Vista or XP is significantly cheaper and a lot better than a Mac.
PCs are everywhere (not Macs), there is tons of sofwtare for Windows (not Macs), there is tons of computer accessories and hardware for PCs (not Macs) and with a PC running Windows one has infinite options as user, buyer and as a developer; in the Mac world, one has very little freedom and we are all subject to what Apple and Steve Jobs think we should do or not do.
Thank you very much but now, I do not need a Mac.
Besides, Windows Vista is superior to Macs. Vista is so easy to use and customize, and it comes with lots of features that either cost a lot of money or just plainly do not exist on the Macintosh walled garden. With Vista you can talk to the PC or you can have the PC read to you, you can use a pen and use your own handwriting on a PC, Vista have an extensive and very easy to use multimedia center that can be used with one's entertainment center and TV at home.
Lots of options and freedom of choice that you do not have with Macs. With the IPhone Apple went to an extreme by not allowing any third party program to be installed on the IPhone. This was done supposedly for security reasons, while the IPhone has been already hacked left and right and can be unlocked to use with T-Mobile and other carriers. In the mean time, the legitimate industry of professional programming developers are not allowed to build a library of thousands or millions of programs as they have done for the Palm Treo, Pocket PCs and other PDAs. On IPhone, the number of third party software is zero.
Steve Jobs does not like java and Flash, so he decreed that the IPhone will simply not support java and Flash. Doesn't Steve Jobs have any idea of home many millions of Web sites out there use java nd Flash?
Also, I am not sold on buying an overpriced brand new Mac. Dwelve into this foreign Mac system and have to spoent more money buying Windows Vista just so that I can run Windows on the Mac with all sorts of idiosyncrasies and limitations.
No, thank you. I can spend as little as $600 and get a very nice and powerful PC running Windows Vista Home Premium and be good to go.
I am also worried about the future of Macs
given that after 20 years they barely have 3% of the world's personal computer market. One of these days, Steve Jobs might discontinue the Mac; afterall, he and Apple are so busy making overpriced multimedia players, crippled IPhones and trying to make people watch video on tiny screens at all times.
No, thank you, I'll stick with PCs and Microsoft Windows to have freedom of choice and to be able to easily compute and communicate with all my friends and family, and the rest of the world.
Anyway, this is just my opinion.
To the Crazy, Uninformed PC User...
than not if you have a PC customized to Mac specs (Same hardware, memory, etc)
the PC is usually more expensive. That's true with both Laptops and Desktops. PCs
are less expensive, because their configurations are crappy, and they aren't built to
the same design engineering standard. I guess what I'm saying is if you want to
save money, go with a PC. If you want a computer with a better configuration (CPU
speed, memory, HD etc, etc), and you're willing to pay for it, get a Mac. Also, if you
factor in cost of ownership, Windows PCs are a lot more expensive than Macs.
Countless business schools have studied and proved this. It's irrefutable. Between
the cost of software to fix PC problems (spyware services, anti-virus subscriptions,
etc) and costs associated with having to bring them to a technician (this may not be
what YOU do, but most PCs users can't fix their own machines when they
break...and even if you fix your own machines, that's still costing you in lost
uptime), owning a Windows PC means dumping money into it all year, every year.
Then the cost in diminished productivity with a PC (freezing/crashing programs, OS
malfunctions, general software failure and general computer retardation) makes
Windows PCs EVEN MORE expensive to own.
And to say PCs are "better" than macs is totally subjective. Better, says who? PC
users? LOL The facts disagree. But I digress. Do your own research.
Actually everything you say stinks of "uninformed PC user". No software for Macs?
Are you out of your mind? "Vista is superior to Mac?" Are you crazy? Molly Wood,
of CNet, who doesn't even like macs, says "The only thing more annoying than my
Mac is Windows Vista". Vista is buggy, unstable, and everything built into Vista has
been available in Mac OS for 6 or 7 years. And everything coming in the next OS-X
release won't be found in Windows for years to come. So when you say "Vista is
superior to Mac" I hope you realize that that claim not only cannot be
substantiated, but it's contrary to what most Vista users are saying. Factually Vista
has more bugs, more vulnerabilities, more dissatisfaction feedback, and profoundly
lower up-time ratings than OS-X has ever had, even in it's first iteration.
For whatever it's worth, I was a Windows user from the days of Windows 3.11 to
Win XP SP2 before I switched to Macs. I was one of those people who fixed my own
PC when it broke. And I'm one of those people whose productivity went through
the roof when I switched to Macs. My Mac paid for itself inside of 7 months, and
I'm not kidding. I always make a point to mention my technical background so
people don't think I'm just some blind, biased Mac fan. I have perspective and
experience with both platforms.
To the Crazy, Uniformed Mac user
First, the price issue. I have gotten into this discussion with Mac fans a number of times, and they just don't get the point that trying to compare the virtues of Macs and PCs based solely on cost is not an argument that you can win. Mac?s have differences in hardware configuration from PCs in minor areas, such as including FireWire ports and using all in one designs that make direct comparisons problematic, but I can always pull a quote a from Dell that will exceed a Mac in most important technical specs at a much better price. Macs have value in other areas, such as bundled software (if you need or want that) and style (if it appeals to you), but they always cost more for what you really get. And, no, it is not because the PCs are using ?crappy? parts or design. You Mac fans always throw that up whenever someone does show a similarly configured PC for a better price, but the truth is that PCs and Macs are built from mostly the same parts anymore, Apple just puts them in a different package. I always hear the argument that Apple engineers or designs the parts in the Mac, but that is laughable. Most parts in a Mac are interchangeable with PCs. Apple assembles their Macs from standard parts provided by other suppliers, just like PC companies do.
Now, cost of ownership. Just exactly why would a PC user have to ?dump money into it all year? to keep their PC running? Computers in general are very reliable, and the vast majority of users never have to have their computer serviced during its lifetime. My organization still has a fairly large number of Windows 2000 systems in use, and even a few Windows 98 computers in service. Most computers in the business world (and at home) are replaced due to obsolescence rather than failure.
Keeping Windows secure is child?s play. Windows updates automatically, antivirus software updates automatically, and scans happen automatically. Most systems are preconfigured for this at the factory or dealer. I haven?t picked up a virus in several years now, and with Vista, even spyware is rare. Macs have had the advantage of obscurity, making their users think they are more secure, but recent events have shown that Apple doesn?t have a clue about how to keep their software secure. [b]If[/b] Apple ever attains a significant market share (and that?s a big if), they will be sorely pressed to handle the types of attacks that are routine in the Windows world.
Stability. Windows has always been stable, if properly configured. I have also used Windows from the beginning, having started with Windows 286. Yes, Windows can lock up or crash, but that is as rare now as it is on the Mac. There was a time when Macs locked up almost hourly, but they have improved, and Windows as well. Each new version of Windows has improved on stability, with Windows 98 crashing maybe once per week for most of us, Windows 2000 was very stable, and XP and Vista have continued to improve. Macs do well in this area, mainly due to their very limited hardware variations, but Windows does well also, especially considering the vast variety of hardware and software supported.
Finally, Vista. Have you even used Vista? I have been running it at home now for several months, and it is an improvement over XP in almost every area. It is common for the press to trash every new version of Windows (do you remember the ?reviews? of Windows 98, or XP when they first appeared?), nitpicking every little difference, and jumping on every instance of incompatibility as a ?bug?. MacOS also has ?issues? like this with each new version, and it takes a while for software to catch up. Many of the so called experts who are criticizing Vista and telling everyone to stay with XP, also trashed XP when it first appeared. Vista is very stable, fast (on modern hardware), visually appealing, and secure. Is it perfect? No, no software is, including your precious OSX.
In conclusion, it is na?ve to claim that either system is superior to the other. Macs excel at some things, Windows at others. I can do things with my Windows PCs that you can?t do with a Mac, and vice versa. Being ?smug and arrogant? doesn?t do service to either side..
$$$ old news
"Finally, Vista. Have you even used Vista?" Probably not but the reverse mentality doesn't stop Windows users slating Macs they've never used.
After 5 years of waiting Windows finally has a viable videochat system (Skype) I thought we'd be able to chat with friends on Windows but guess what? No mics or webcams on their budget PC! So buying initially underspec'd products really is a false economy though as similar spec'd Macs and PC prices are now within 10% of eachother and the fact that my iMac G4 is just starting to get painful after 5 years the old cost argument doesn't add up anymore.
I'd still go with the average user will get more from a Mac at a similar price.
McD
Issues
Why do budget PCs not include webcams or mics? Maybe because they are budget systems? When you buy a $500 computer from WalMart, you can expect that it will not include some options. You might also consider that most of us PC users don?t use webcams and mics, so the manufacturers don?t see any reason to include them. They can, of course, add them for a few dollars if they need or want them. You may not realize this, but the average user doesn?t spend any where near for their PC what an average Mac user does. Mac fans claim that their computers are no more expensive than a good PC, but when I, or others, show a better configured system for 30% or more less, then they claim that it is some kind of cheap junk. Macs have always been more expensive, mainly due to lower volume in the Mac market. Macs have other ways of providing value, such as bundled software or style, but you always try to compare on price. That was the argument that I was making above, and I don?t consider that derogatory. As I said above, Macs and PCs have differences, in software, in capability, in price, and in how they are used by the typical user. Telling someone that their system is a piece of cheap junk because it doesn?t include some feature that is important to [b]you[/b] but not others is just smug and arrogant.
Oh please...
And exactly how much does a microphone or web cam (or for that matter, a combo mic/web cam) gonna set you back..? I see them retailing for as little as $20 with the average about $100 for high end models. If I were to look harder, I probably could find them cheaper.
Of course, while it's nice to get some things thrown into the package, the fact is not everyone out there NEEDS a web cam or mic.. Why spend money on stuff you don't need?
Of course, your needs MIGHT change someday. And in that case, all is NOT lost. Why? Because you can always add one later. And while a good cam might set you back say $100 today, that same cam might only set you back say, $50 down the road - OR for the same $100, you can get an even better one. Such is the way of hardware economics...
So your argument that a PC is underspec'ed... HOGWASH. You get what you need. You don't spend money on stuff you don't. What's your point? It's not a false economy. It's a very real one.
I can see it now...
Ok.. It's a bit of a stretch, but here goes:
Mac and OSX reach a significant enough level of market share. The day after this gets announced, some wanker skript kiddie sets loose some nasty virus that hoses the Mac platform. The day after that, Symantec announces the BRAND NEW Norton AV for the Mac.
And at that point, the Mac's proverbial goose will REALLY be cooked.
Reality
* Her mac was broken and was sent to service twice. It takes her 15 days without her mac
* Her mac could not connect to our Sony projector, so she have to borrow my Sonny Vaio to do presentation
And how about my Sony VGN-SZ450N
* Run Vista perfectly
* Not broken once
* Work with any projector, printer and devices on our office.
But she is still very proud, because her mac is in white color while my Vaio in black. Ha ha. Typical Mac fanboi.
The user may be uninformed but so are you
Choices, choices (but none of them useful)...
"I am also worried about the future of Macs" Don't be, they were here long before Windows became popular and they'll be here long after the concept of a "PC" is dead i.e. the computer becomes a series of devolved, integrated application specific devices - sounds familiar? Beside what would MS have to copy if not OSX? most of the Vista functions you mention were in Panther (3? years ago)
"they barely have 3% of the world's personal computer market" Difficult to buy a product in a country where it's not sold, you might wish to look a bit closer to home I think they took 16% of the US notebook market last quarter. Besides it's a 'large' 3%, with half the movies & TV shows we watch and most of the music we listen to produced on Macs it begs the question what the other 97% of the market is doing. Probably wading through those millions of software options trying to find a good one!
(Just for the record, the walled garden always has the best flowers hence they're worth protecting.)
McD
you might try using both first
For the rest of your plaint: what a mess. the iPhone is a phone, not a PC. The number of third-party apps is not zero, it's merely the case that all the third party apps are--at the moment--sandboxed. I don't need--and neither do you--thousands of peripherals and programs, merely the ones that work. In my case, music production, Windows lags. Windows is a viciously proprietary environment, and the mere implication that it's less proprietary than Mac is absurd on its face.
Apple ships about 1.7 million Macs per quarter, accounting for a bit over 60% of their revenue. (Go look it up.) Unless you think these people are imbeciles and are ready to leave all that money on the table--also jeopardizing the ecosystem for their non-Mac products--you're simply spewing nonsense. You're simply spewing nonsense.
I like Vista, it works fine. Yes, the UI is a little goofy and they seem to have some unresolved hostility towards their users, but it's a perfectly serviceable OS. So is OS X, which also has its goofy moments. Each borrows a little and innovates a little; both are open in some measure and ruthlessly proprietary.
Try again.
Already has, BUT
Those sales, however, are generally confined to the consumer, small business and graphics communities. PCs, of course, have the vast majority of the enterprise market.
So some guy decides to try a Mac and likes it. He likes it so much, he buys a mac for each of his 2 kids and his wife. Apple ends up with 4 sales. Meanwhile, the Dep't of Agriculture puts in an order with Dell for 2000 machines.
The above is not going to change anythime soon. Even is OSX is a thousand times better than Vista, any enterprise going all mac would end up with BOTH its hardware and OS software only being available from one vendor. That's opposed to their present situation where their OS is controlled by one company, but they have many choices on the hardware side.
Personally, I work in an all Mac small business. I would recommend Macs to any such business due to lack of headaches.
Just got out of prison
few days after he switched to Mac - i.e. while he was still
LEARNING the new system - I asked how it was going. He
said, "I feel like I just got out of prison!"
'Nuff said.
Michael Linehan
Yes.! And it's been happening in large numbers
Let's face it, OSX is slicker, cooler, more stable and has a great multimedia package integrated. In an effort for MS to catch up to OSX, they basically broke backwards compatibility. That, was the opening Apple needed to win over Windows users.
Slicker and cooler?
I always hear Mac users brag about how stable a Mac is. I remember when Macs would crash hourly, but understand that they have improved. Windows has also improved, and modern versions are very stable. Other than a toolbar causing problems with IE7, I haven't had any stability issues with Vista, and even with XP I only crashed about once per year, usually caused by something I did, so just how is it that OSX is any more stable than Windows? Both are quite good anymore.
Finally, switchers. Macs have slightly increased market share to about 6% of the installed base, less than Vista has reached in only a few months. Most of the surge in Mac sales are from people moving up from older, non-Intel Macs (which still outnumber Intel based Macs) rather than any trend of Windows users switching. Linux seems to be more popular for switchers than Macs, probably due to price advantages. Windows is still holding steady at about 90% share of the installed base. Keep in mind that the biggest market for computers is in the enterprise, where Macs hardly show up at all. As one poster above said, while Macs are selling a few computers for home use, large organizations are ordering multiples of 1000s of Windows systems. If Apple wants to grow above single digit market share, they will have to find some way to crack that market.
Sure , protect your Windows ecosystem .
Apple has ignored the business market...
Difference between consumer & enterprise
Consumers are spending their own money. People are generally more careful with their own money. The fact that Apple has shown tremendous growth in the consumer space - yes these are switchers - indicates that a large number of the American buying public is making a conscious decision to spend more on an Apple because they perceive better value.
The above also applies to small businesses, the kind with 1-20 employees and no IT guy, where every dollar spent comes out of the owner's pocket. They're spending a little more because they perceive far fewer headaches.
If you look at recent ZDNet stories, you will see many references to recent surveys of retail sales for Vista and Office. Those surveys noted that Office was selling well and 20% were the mac version. That shows "switchers". If you already have a mac and Office, you're not going to buy a new copy. There'd be no reason since there's no new version of Office mac, and it hasn't even been updated to native Intel.
All of the above indicate that, not only are people making a decision to spend more money to get a Mac, but are also willing to shell out the necessary additional dollars to get the Mac version of Office since the Windows version they already own would not work.
By the way, this ZDNet article was based on a NY Times article. If you were to see the front page of today's Times (Sunday - the big day for that paper) you would see a big picture at the very top of Page 1 - right under the masthead and headline - showing a lady using a big Macbook pro in her living room. The story was about cancer, not computers, but it clearly showed one person who decided to spend her own hard earned money on that Mac.
True
Many here claim that businesses don't buy Macs because of some conspiracy from people like me who are afraid of Macs putting me out of a job. I am a network administrator, and I deal with networks and servers, switches and routers, and, yes, PCs. Having Mac workstations instead of Windows workstations would not affect my job much at all, but it is not likely to happen, since Apple has ignored the enterprise market for decades. Macs can do many things, but they cannot do many of the tasks that we need, at least not without installing Windows.
Macs do make fine home computers for some, not for others. I am very happy with Vista at home, and I do things with it that I could not do with a Mac, just as you can do things with your Mac that I probably couldn't do with my system. It all comes down to what we need, or want, our computers to do, and what we can afford to spend.
Food for thought-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
(income statistics from 2005)
If you have trouble interpreting the data, or simply find your head swimming, it says that the 50% of the country makes less 50,000 or less per household (important - that's not per person, it's per household, which has an average of 2-3 people). The median income per income person (stated as working and non-working above age 14) is around $26,000. No matter what you think or where you live, that is not a lot of money.
Do you think that the majority of these people can afford $1200 for a computer, let alone be able to justify the expense.
Like it or not, the majority of users don't use a computer like you do, or like the other posters here do. Frankly, we who frequent these sites use the computer quite a bit more than the average user, are a bit better at it, and probably paler with worse eyesight for the trouble (lol, just kidding - kinda). Normal users just want to open a box, hook the computer up, plug it in, turn it on, type something and surf the net. The majority of users don't fanatically serach for media that must be played in high-def on the best media center their desktop can handle, that's what their iPod is for (assuming that these people can afford $350 for an iPod, my hunch is that most can't) and hi-def to most people is not something that they have, it's something that they want...someday...when the price comes down...a lot..., nor do they do video and photo editing and font layout. In addition, they don't have money to spend on dual boot systems, the best of the best hardware components, or brand-new software. Tell a single mother with two kids that she is more financially sound buying a Mac. When you manage to get her up off the floor from her hysterical fits of laughter, she will explain to you how entirely wrong you are while showing you the $400 eMachines box she got last weekend. No, the computers aren't the same spec-wise. But both have more stuff than she, or the majority of other users, will ever need or even know about, so what's the difference to the average user? The only difference to most people, honestly, is about $800. I don't care how much you push style, if you asked 100 people on the street which was more important to them - having an all-in-one that looked nice but cost $1200, or an identical (for their purposes, at least) $400 box that had normal PC looks, 80% or more are going to choose the cheaper one becaues of price alone, and another 10% will prefer the normal PC look over the all-in-one. That's just the way it is. And the current state of affairs isn't making it any easier.
Price is a big issue, even though those on here pretend that it's not. I'm not talking spec for spec. I'm talking base prices. The base Mac does more than most people need it to. So do base model computers. The difference is that the base model Mac is $1200 bare-bones and the base model computer is around $500 nicely loaded. Style only goes a long way if your wallet isn't screaming to be fed. With 17% of the country at poverty status or worse, it's sad that Apple cares so little about the possibility of gaining and keeping loyal customers that it will continue to sell a box that sells from other manufacturers for $500 or so for over $1000. Missed opportunities. Lots of them, actually.
This is why people say that Apple provides no choice. They provide some choices for some, but Windows PCs come in a flavor for everyone. The public perception is that Microsoft actually does want everyone to have one of their machines and Apple doesn't. If everyone had an Apple, they wouldn't be elite anymore. It may not be (entirely) accurate, but it's the mold their cutting themselves into because they don't offer more variety that appeals to the wider audience (I think it is accurate though. When people say "because they're cool" as to why they bought a Mac, "cool" doesn't refer to the same old same old, but something that not many have - in other words if they lose that snob-appeal, they lose a lot of potential and existing customers that they want -elitists- and stand to gain a lot of customers that are 'beneath them'-unwashed masses).
I'm sure they are fine with it, and have several billion reasons to be ($$$). However, Mac will never have the majority if this issue remains, all other issues being equal. But, again, it's just a thought.