Posted on 06/02/2006 8:19:08 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent, the firm's data shows.
(Excerpt) Read more at appleinsider.com ...
I don't think vertical applications are going to make a mass move to the web. Web apps suck, the UI is like Win3.1 and hideously clunky, and they're always slow (no way to avoid it, network access will always be slower than local HD access). People have been saying web apps are the future for a long time but I'm not buying it. Most of the everyday apps that people use, especially ones that don't revolve around a central database, will remain client side, unless there's a gigantic jump in the speed of networks and a huge jump in the UI of web apps.
You can still buy the application - just use its web service interfaces internally as part of your Intranet. There's no need to buy software as an Internet service, though that has big advantages, too - namely ending upgrade cycles and endless hours of regression testing. The costs and time saved will make "renting" vertical applications a smart move for a lot of companies. And most vertical applications come with big annual maintenance fees, anyway, so they aren't like a one-time purchase of Microsoft Word. You license the use of those applications for a year at a time - you never really "own" them.
You guys are missing the point - web service interfaces don't necessarily have anything to do with the public Internet. They fit into a company's service-oriented architecture and allow it to use any type of client it wants - web browser or custom application - as long as it can interact with the service. A vertical application will in most cases still live on the company's servers and be accessed through the company's own network - there just won't be a need for a Windows-only "fat" client. Ajax and its successors are already revolutionizing the web client so that old clunky user experience is on its way out, but a web browser isn't the only way to provide client access.
But I see IT Departments giving up PC client support altogether over the next five years - there just isn't the time or resources to do it any more. The company will give each employee $2,500 and tell them to go buy whatever type of computer they want - it just has to be able to access the company Intranet and create documents in a standard format. Apple and Linux will benefit greatly from that development.
I'm talking about the worldwide market
The JohnFnKerry approach to computer marketing.........
Which is probably why you lower cased American.
I'm not missing the point at all. My point is that web services interfaces currently, and in the forseeable future, result in applications that are slower to execute and have clunky looking wierd responding UI that end users don't like. The primary application my company works on has both a full client and a web interface, less than 10% of our customer base use the web interface, and as web apps go it's not bad, but as a web app it's still slower and harder to use than the client app.
People have been projecting a return of the "thin client" under various names and theories for over a decade, and they've all been wrong. It's just not happening. IT departments like thin clients more, but nobody else does, and in the end there's always somebody outside the IT department that has to cut the check, and that person won't be cutting a check for a machine they consider un-usable.
Bill Gates said thin document-centric was going to take over in 5 years too, he said that 11 years ago. It ain't happening.
Before Jobs they RARELY charged for .x releases. System seven yes, 7.5 yes, but not the .1s.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm saying they didn't.
Charging for these (and hyping them) has been a key part of Jobs' success.
Further companies much smaller than Apple make cash off of a far smaller user base, and in fact on software similar to Apple's. A TON of high end video stuff is very small user base, very big cost per app, ame to an extent with music.
The point is Apple is, and always has been BOTH. (This is why separating the two as Amelio had even talked about would have been disasterous. It hasn't exactly saved Palm either).
I didn't know PC users found those insulting. I certainly didn't think they insulted them. I thought they highlighted what Macs do well in a pretty funny way. A buddy of mine with a PC even laughed at the restarting one even though his PC is having that very problem.
I've used PCs, Macs, mainframes.... and I've never had any of the problems illustrated in those ads with my PCs. If the purpose of the ads is to convince me to buy a Mac, then then the ads are an abysmal failure. I'm perfectly comfortable with a PC or a Mac, but I'm not willing to pay 3X the price for the same computing power.
If you aren't willing to buy a Mac anyway, how would the ads convince you to buy them? What the ads do is to try and get people who wouldn't ordinarily consider a Mac to at least consider them.
Usually, the point of an ad is to convince people to buy your product, especially people who don't already own one. If Mac want to increase their share of the market beyond it's current 2%, then it's going to have to convince some PC users to switch. The current ad campaign is more likely to elicit cheers and laughs from current Mac users (kinda like Algore cheerleading for the extremist left) than it is to convince a PC user to switch.
My point is, you said there is no way you would use a Mac. How is any ad going to convince you to switch? Other people who might be willing to try them, especially after they have used an iPod might be more willing to do so after seeing the ads. Not everyone who hasn't already used a Mac is dead set against using them, they just haven't yet. Any ads that are a little funny (I think they all are especially the iPod one) will at least get people thinking about Macs if they are looking for a new computer to buy.
What I said was that I'm not willing to pay 3 times the price for the same computing power. I have used Macs, my parents have one. But tossing out insults and stereo typed anecdotes about PCs isn't going to convince me to switch. Show me price. Show me computing power. Show me application software (with price). Convince me that I get a better computer for my money. I'll switch, but not based upon anything Apple is currently doing to attract customers.
You have to be kidding. The version numbering convention for Mac OS X is different from previous versions. Instead of full number incremental increases for each new reason, Apple decided to milk everything they could out of the "X".
In other words, the numbering of the versions is superficial. Every major update is the equivalent of a full integer increase in the old naming convention.
Further companies much smaller than Apple make cash off of a far smaller user base, and in fact on software similar to Apple's.
Most companies much smaller than Apple's don't develop the underlying operating system on which their software runs. If Apple were to become a purely software company, they'd have to scrap their OS business and become a vendor of Windows software. Not an option.
A TON of high end video stuff is very small user base, very big cost per app, ame to an extent with music.
I specialized in this market. The customers don't upgrade often, so at best you make a major sale every few years. Otherwise, they use what they got until they have to upgrade to stay competitive. The small size of the market, and the cost of the software and hardware necessary to be a player, make it a very small, and specialized community. It isn't like selling Microsoft Office software, which every business and almost every user who works at home needs to install to maintain transparent compatibility with their files.
The point is Apple is, and always has been BOTH. (This is why separating the two as Amelio had even talked about would have been disasterous. It hasn't exactly saved Palm either).
Apple is a HARDWARE company. They make software to increase the value of their hardware platform. Without the software, their hardware would not be worth the price they charge. Without the hardware, they'd be unable to compete selling their software and OS packages.
I've had discussions with Apple employees, and not the run of the mill store employees, but the highly placed regional reps and engineers who interfaced the specialists with Apple corporate. On this topic, I know what I'm talking about.
I'll tell ya what. Having written for a dozen different Mac 'zines, and worked for Apple I'll send you a free copy of every paid update from system 6 through system 9.
Expect 4 or 5.
Apple has BOUGHT companies which were already survivng providing software exclusivly for workstations that's WHY apple is profitable now. These mission critical apps are Mac Only.
Two percent?
Citation please.
1) Version number conventions from pre-Mac OS X do not apply to Mac OS X. You're kidding yourself. One could easily reversion the Mac OS X series of operating systems as, Mac OS X v.1, v.2, v.3, etc. Those would correspond to 10.1, 10.2, 10.3... Your argument is faulty. Every one of the charged updates are major updates, and are not incremental updates, as you claim. The incremental updates are still free, and are noted in the new version number convention as 10.x.y, with "y" being the incremental version number.
2) As I already said, and find myself repeating - Apple cannot both produce an operating system and the software to run on it, and remain profitable without the hardware portion of their business. Their business model relies on it, and your proposal would remove the hardware aspect of their model - and would eventually bankrupt their business. In order to do as you propose, Apple would have to scrap the Mac OS and produce software only for Windows, because they'd have no means of maintaining the development of an OS, if their only business was based on software sales.
Those "mission critical" apps may be Mac only, but as I pointed out - they represent a very tiny portion of the Mac market, and your strategy would shrink Apple's marke share from where it is, to something a lot smaller.
You have no idea what you're talking about. In order for Apple to continue to do well, they have to continue to leverage their OS and Hardware business together, with the professional suite of applications there to add to the total value of their product line. Apple is a hardware company which makes some software.
I'm not denying that nor am I even arguing that.
who cares? Stop setting up little strawmen.
Again, I said worldwide userbase. In case you didn't know, this so called "worldwide" includes china, united states, and a handful of other countries. Yes, it's quite true.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
That's possible, entirely possible.
See post 1, and see post 7.
Post 7, the post you are replying to.
Here's a hint.
RTFM.
See post 1, and see post 7.
Post 7, the post you are replying to.
Here's a hint.
RTFM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.