Posted on 04/11/2010 2:38:33 AM PDT by Swordmaker
What does Apple get that Sony, HP, Microsoft, Dell, Samsung, and LG don’t?…. Usability in software. All these other geeks out there making hardware love packing on “specs”, stuffing big numbers like RAM, gigahertz, and hard drive space into small or cool looking gadgets. It all looks good on paper, but after you use one of their gadgets for more than a few weeks, you just want to throw it out a window. Thousands of new gadgets released every year all using the same-old crappy unfriendly, unintuitive, unattractive software. It’s no wonder so many are flocking to Apple when we can just pickup one of their simplistic products, start taping and swiping our fingers, and lo and behold… it just does what we want it to do. Of course, it isn’t easy, or cheap, to make software this user friendly, which is why everyone is having such a hard time keeping up.
As a software developer, I hear the phrase “I just want it to…”. Which, as any experienced software developer knows, is the most expensive phrase we ever hear. People have software needs all the time, which may require vast complicated effort to achieve, but they want it to hide all that complication behind a simple and user-friendly interface. What most people don’t know is that making software do just about anything doesn’t cost nearly as much as making it easy and intuitive for them to use. This lack of cost awareness is what ruins so many “brilliant” product ideas.
Sony is, in my opinion, the worst offender. In the past decade, I have seen Sony release cutting-edge gadgets to the market before anyone else. The PSP was an amazing gadget when it came out, in theory. It played music, videos, viewed photos, surfed the web, and of course, played games. The problem was that, excluding the last feature, it didn’t do any of them well. In fact, all the claimed features were so hard to use that almost no one could figure it out. Then, even more idiotically, Sony received reports that users were not using the extra features and stopped improving them! Sony could have been the what the iPod Touch is today, but lost the chance with bad software.
But I don’t just write this to rant, I write this as a warning to other business owners and entrepreneurs out there. Developing software and technology is one thing, but making it user friendly is another. In fact, usability can consume up to 80% of a project’s time and resources. That is, if your actually going to make something people will want to use. You have to build it, review it, fix it, test it, fix it, beta release, fix it, get feedback, fix it, get more feedback, fix it… and maybe… just maybe… people will be able to actually use it.
This is why the only mobile platform even close to keeping up with Apple is Google’s Android. Google is the only one in the fight with the know-how and resources to keep up. Even RIM, makers if the Blackberry, can’t keep their mobile software up to par, they have to invest in starting from scratch or spending huge resources in fixing what they have.
If you or your company has a “great idea” for an application or gadget, just remember, once you price the development… multiply it a couple times for usability.
Same thing for iPhone. There is no reason to go to the crippled mobile websites when your browser is fully capable of seeing the full site (albeit, minus the Flash content.). However, I do not believe that NetApplication's OS scanner uses the browser to determine the visiting machine. NA has a separate report on browser statistics.
I do take issue with NetApplication's new statistical model of imputing (guessing) additional Windows usage for non-polled nations, such as China, and adding it to their figures, which they started doing in February, assuming numbers not truly in evidence. . .
I would, however, point out that we power users who so change the setting to spoof the readings of the polling sites like that are a drop in the proverbial statistical bucket and would not skew the demographic an iota. We simply are not that numerous.
I am a double-switcher.
I was a Windows software developer who switched to Linux and then to Apple.
I liked my Powerbook had two of them. They were definitely king before Vista and Windows 7. My kids never caught a virus or any malware when using the Apples.
However, when my Powerbook died I couldn’t justify the $2000 replacement cost. So I bought a $550 lenovo laptop running Vista.
To my surprise I was happy to be back on Windows. (It was an unexpected feeling of relief.) When on Apple it was always harder to find software - not impossible, just harder. Also, printer utilities and such provided by hardware vendors are better as well.
Occasionally, I do miss the OSX/BSD shell but not often. And, I do miss Spotlight - probably miss spotlight the most. But third party indexers do help bridge the gap.
My lenovo has lasted 1 year of pretty rough usage. If it lasts two years then it will definitely be worth it. (Because the Apple stuff lasts forever)
Have you tried Powershell?
OK, you're an engineer. Build me an iPad with a close to twelve hour removable battery and keep the same size and weight specs. Oh, gee, you have to add a door to get at the battery? That adds weight? and thickness. And complexity. How about spring loaded electrical battery contacts. Don't they get dirty and corrode? The battery? It has to be stiff enough and monolithic to be removable in one piece. So, it has to have a hardshell... And contacts. Add more weight, or take away capacity. I think you would find you would NOT be able to keep the form factor or the price or the battery capacity and have a consumer replaceable battery. These are all engineering trade offs. Apple's engineers made their choices in favor of light weight and thinness and long battery life.
“Are you aware that in almost every comparison of the Total Cost of Ownership between PCs and Macs, that the Macs turn out to be less expensive to own?”
Sure the ones put out by apple.
Applers reminds me of Mercedes owners, when the world is run on Fords, Kia’s, and VW’s.
A tool is a tool. The thought of one’s ‘happiness’ being connected to an inanimate object?
I won’t even go there philosophically.
What is it with you guys? On these threads you sound like jealous preteens.
I enjoy these threads because as a Mac user I usually learn something. As one who has sold complicated software and systems (hardware/software) I have used PCs with both DOS and Windows and have dealt with VAXs and IBM mainframes.
On these threads I see PC users call Mac users gay, Kool Ade drinkers, Lefties, etc., while all the Mac users say is "Buy a Mac, you'll like it and they cost less to own than PCs."
MicroSoft gained its market share on the coattails of IBM rather than through some superiority of its software. Just as Xerox foolishly decided to abandon the office automation business and concentrate on copiers, so did IBM foolishly decide to concentrate on hardware and abandon software for the PCs. All underestimated the future of PCs. At that time Tandy/Radio Shack, Exxon, AT&T, Texas Instruments and several others were making and selling PCs. Nearly all abandoned the market.
Apple, IBM, and many IBM clones remained and most of the clones went to the cheaper generic DOS to run their hardware. To compete, cost was a big consideration for them as they had to keep prices low in order to have some appeal. They sold lots of boxes and as a result DOS, and later Windows, was the market leader by a long shot.
So, MicroSoft is not where it is because of superior products. Most of the talk about MicroSoft is how the next iteration is going to fix the problems with the last one. PC fans, most of whom are Mac haters, seem to revel in their ability to deal with those problems while denigrating those of us who would rather not deal with them.
Of course, there is much more to this and I may not be technically correct about some of the history but that is the Readers Digest version of what I see here. I also don't see any Mac users whose happiness in wrapped up in their computer. That is just projection on your part, Leisler. I hate to contemplate the psychological implications of that.
“Usability in software”
Without a doubt Apple gets it. Software is so complex and tries to do everything before a user even knows they want to do it that it is a PTA. Apple doesn’t do everything but what it does do it usally does well, easily, and without fuss.
Apple doesn’t have those nagging popup windows that say, “I notice you were typing a letter, would you like me to...”
Apple doesn’t have backtalking applications that ask, “Are you sure you want to close this document?”
Apple doesn’t have a million popup windows every time you connect a USB memory stick,: “Found new Hardware.”, “Hardware drivers found.”, “Hardware installed. “, “New disk drive found.”, “Disc drive ready.”, “Disc ddrive located at I:.”, “Disc driver now ready to use.”, and on and on and on.
Apple doesn’t have a lot of annoying crap Windows and Linux have. It doesn’t take a software engineer to run the damned things.
A year from now will be interesting. Some reports show a lot of RIM users moving to another product. Apples agreements with verizon and sprint may help them though.
Look, I keep on top of the malware issue for the Mac. I maintain the Mac ping list on Fr. I post every damn report of them on FreeRepublic when the come out. Don't try to tell me what there is out there for there in the wild when you don't know beyond the hype you read.
Currently, puget, in the wild, there are ZERO known self transmitting, self replicating, self installing viruses or worms for OS X. There were about ten known in the lab candidates for such viruses and worms that have been announced and given names such as Renepo, Macarena, Leap.A or Oompa-loompa, Inqtana.A & B, etc. These were three day wonders in the press and were announced as "the first Mac virus" and "Apple users will finally have to use Anti-virus ware!". . . But they were ALWAYS merely proof-of-concept virus that DID NOT WORK! and were never seen outside of a computer security company lab. One of them, as an example, took the dilligent efforts of two Apple engineers, two Apple security specialists and two reports from Macworld magazine over six hours of effort just to get it to do what any self respecting virus is supposed to do: copy itself from the infected computer to an yninfected computer. Once they succeeded in doing that, it didn't run on the invaded machine because it didn't have permission! Inqtana, when it was announced took advantage of a Bluetooth vulnerability that had been closed for over a year... And STILL required the user of the invaded machine to accept and run the invading file. Some virus. Knocks on your door and asks permission to come in. Then you have to run it for it to do any damage.
On the other hand, there are approximately fifteen known malicious Trojan horse programs out in the wild, in three distinct families. They require a distinct effort and stupidity on the part of the user to download, install, and run, ignoring red flags and system warnings built-in to OS X. These are easily avoided. If a user cannot be trusted to practice safe computing, even running an anti-virus app will not save him by adding more warning on top of those already provided.
So, Puget, until a credible viral threat arises, there is not much reason to run anti-virus software on a Mac. In ten years of trying, the virus writers have yet to find a viable vector to transmit their malware.
DISA has security guidelines for just about everything. You can find them on the DISA site most of the time. NIST also has quite a few.
You don’t see a whole lot of apple products in the US govt. Support issues, training, cost, and of course the inertia that PCs have.
“I also don’t see any Mac users whose happiness in wrapped up in their computer.”
Actaully several have posted on this thread that their computer makes them happy. I agree though, a computer is a tool. I’d much rather be fishing, hiking or diving.
The reason why so many of us who have used Unix (whether BSD or SysV or Linux) use Macs is that behind the pretty GUI is a Unix implementation which is very much like BSD, which among Unix aficionados, is the preferred Unix.
Linux is OK, but there are many points inside Linux where their design ideas just grate on a seasoned BSD user’s eyeballs.
I can pull down a GNU/OSF package written for (insert name of Unix here) and have it running on OS X without much trouble as a Unix application (ie, command line terminal shell) very, very quickly, with a minimum of hassle. When (or if) I want to put a pretty GUI on it, that’s made much easier by Apple’s Cocoa environment these days and Xcode, their development environment than porting a similar app into .Net or Win32 would be.
That’s why I like OS X and Macs: Because behind the curtain is an environment I’ve been using for 20 years, quite happily, and that has a HUGE base of software already written that will drop in a like a dose of sugar.
The speed of the boot process in Windows 7 is faster, to be certain, but there’s a host of things about Windows 7 that are infuriating in the extreme.
Yep, and it was a dumb question at that.
God forbid having a nation of people tinkering with their computers, or customizing cars, or adding rooms to their houses, or boat building.... Why who knows were such curious behavior would lead too?
Yes, people deriving happiness from "objects". Something that you had previously attempted to deride.
Much better is the German like/elite like Apple sensation of ‘don’t you dare open the box you low, base prole! This, is a work de arte!’
A pathetic attempt at sarcasm. You can't even admit that Mac users derive their satisfaction with their computers through actual use.
I think you have summed things up very well. I meet a lot of programmers using Mac notebooks these days. If programmers have learned their skills on any implementation of UNIX, it's a very natural and logical move to Apple's OSX. And these programmers are power users.
I have had Mac, PC and Linux running together in my office for over 5 years now. Over that time, Linux has finally become usable for the average person. The Macs hardly ever get used now. The Win 7 machines rule the roost.
Mac people convinced me they were better, stronger, faster and easier to use. It was complete BS. The’re just white. They aren’t faster, better or easier than either my Win boxes or Linux boxes. OSX is just another operating system, on a more expensive computer, with less software available. If you want to run garage band, by all means, get a Mac.
If you are considering Linux, go with Ubuntu. It is an excellent desktop operating system. The latest OpenOffice will handle your word processing, spreadsheet and presentation management tasks for free. GIMP replaces photo editing software (free) and there are lots of free email/internet options. I’ve had none of the network printing problems I had with older versions of Redhat and Fedora. It has the best version of Mahjong.
For once, CodeToad, I agree 100% with you...
I once heard Windows described as a frenetic Boy Scout, eternally trying to do you a good deed, and always letting you know what and when he is doing it, hoping to get a merit badge for his efforts.
On the other hand, Apple Mac OS X, was described as the ultimate British Butler, always there to unobtrusively hand you exactly what you need when you need it, only to disappear until you need him again, even when you don't know you need him.
I have another analogy: Microsoft is that little annoying dog always trying to hump your leg.
I'd have to disagree with you here. MicroSD slots don't take up crap for space and the damn things are upbiquitous. I'd want the ability to swap out data like books, music, or whatever just by inserting a card. Given that 8GB sd cards are now pretty reasonably priced, this would be great feature.
My ownly real problem with MicroSD is that you can't label the things. My favorite form factor for memory cards is still the compactflash, because they are fast, dense, and you can actually write on the stupid things. :-)
There, fixed it. The trend has not been in favor of Windows.
"available software goes to PC,"
This is actually dead wrong. Macs can run all Windows software, either in a VM or via Boot Camp. PLUS they have the advantage of running MacOS and POSIX software natively. They get POSIX by virtue of the fact that MacOS is built on Unix underpinnings.
"interoperability goes to PC,"
How so? Name an interoperability flaw with Macs. Mac software, network and hardware interfaces are all standardized.
"cost goes to PC."
This one is also arguable. How much is your time worth? Plus Macs come with very good bundled applications with no Windows equivalent, and the software development tools are freely available instead of costing hundreds of dollars.
Oh yeah, and Mac resale value is also much better, so as with BMW or Mercedes the cost of ownership isn't as bad as you'd think on the face of it.
"Pretty and stylish goes to Mac."
True. I'd also add "elegant" to the mix.
If you have to go Virtual then it doesn’t count. Thats like kissing your sister and telling your friends you got lucky.
You like Mac, good for you. Since Microsoft still has the vast majority of market share they are doing something right. They’ve given millions of people good paying jobs for one.
Go play with your mac. I’ll keep doing business on my PC.
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.