Re: Apple's new line of commercials..

[Mitchell Spector <mitch2gs@hotmail.com>]

"Nama" <lord_philip@mac.com> wrote:

>>As far as I'm concerned, Macs are overpriced, and over proprietary. And now
>> that they are Intel based, they are no different than every other PC out
>> there.
>
>Firstly, there was NEVER really any difference between Mac and PC's
>in terms of hardware

    Oh? How about looking at the very core, which has had a completely
different microprocessor architecture starting with the 680x0 and then 
later moving to the RISC based PowerPC. 

    Then there has been NuBus expansion slots, Apple Desktop Bus for
input devices, Zilog based serial controllers (capable of dual function 
as a 230 Kbits/sec proprietary network interface), SCSI and digital 
audio as a built-in standard, GCR encoding for floppy storage, built-in
firmware for supporting a GUI with a mouse as mandatory input device.

>and from an end users point of view. 

    How about merely the fact that up until the early 90's, Macintoshes were
mouse driven GUI systems and PC's were primarily CLI machines with text
screens. There was a day and night difference between the two machines.
The introduction of Windows 3.1 started to blur that difference (only on the
surface really, to the casual observer) and Windows 95 made it disappear.

>They both had  CPU's, they both have RAM and hard drives, and they both 
>interface with various things like mice, keyboards and monitors.

    Yes, granted they were personal computers and used such things, but 
claiming they were fundamentally the same is like saying an Apple II Plus 
and a Pentium 4 system are the same because they both have displays,
RAM, microprocessors and keyboards. 

>The difference is (as Mitchell already pointed out) is the OS. This is how the 
>end user interfaces with the machine, how it feels, how they interact with
>it, and how it basically works for them. This is what makes Mac's
>different (notice that I didn't say better, as that is a purely
>subjective thing).

    This is what makes the Macintosh different as of mid _2006_ (the G5 is
the last hold out, and I believe the last Mac that is backwards compatible
with legacy 68000 applications through Classic Mode).

    My opinion is with the introduction of Intel processors, chipsets and
the ability to natively function as a PC compatible out of the box has put
the "Macintosh" concept on the verge of extinction. MacOS X is the last
unique bit left, but could soon be seen as running Linux or BDS--merely 
an alternative OS running on the common PC.

>Now what's even cooler is that with the new breed of Intel Macs I
>don't have to choose over a PC or a Mac any more. I can have both in
>one.

    I think that is a potential danger. Let's bring this discussion back on
topic by looking at the lifespan of Apple IIGS. It too was two machines
in one, the 8-bit Apple IIe (probably 85% of the II market) and the 16-bit 
GS machine, and as such, ran two kinds of software: classic and native.

    What did software publishers do? They saw the number of II+/IIe/IIc 
machines far out numbered GSes, so they wrote software for the larger 
market audience. Furthermore, they concluded, since IIGS's could run
the 8-bit software, they were covering sales in both markets in anyway.
As a result, despite its advanced native side, so many Apple IIGS were
used as fancy Apple IIe compatibles.

    Fast forward to the present. The Macintosh market is about 3%, while
the PC market is the other 97% or so. Suddenly software publishers are
faced with this: write MacOS X applications that only 3% of the market
can use, or write Windows applications that 100% of the market can
now use (which includes Macs). If the latest PC game runs natively on 
both PC's and Mac's, why would anyone bother writing a MacOS X port? 
Much like the GS example above, one version runs on _all_ machines
(and unlike the GS versus IIe, this One-Port-Fits-All is not inferior).

>>As far as mine is concerned, those commercials do nothing for me except turn
>>me off even more toward the Mac. I've never had to re-start my PC. I've
>>never had a virus harm my PC (though i've had infected files, McAfee has
>>always caught them as soon as I tried to access them).
>
>Terry's example maybe true, but the last time I looked a 1-year
>license for McAfee is $50. For example, 4 years of paying for virus
>protection sure bites into the overall cost of your system and makes
>Terry's other comment about Macs being over priced (which I also do
>not agree with) seem far less than true. Or am I missing something
>here?

    Since I began using a PC 9 years ago, I've never once been infected by 
a virus. I've downloaded a handful of infected files but Norton immediately 
caught them (and I think the only place I've come across such files, is using
a KaZaa file trading network which seems to be a haven for viruses; I since
switched to Bit torrent and not come across any infected files).

    There are freeware anti-viral protection packages out there, and it's
probably worth mentioning how trivial it is to bypass the subscription 
expiry in Norton or McAfee (I agree it's piracy but that doesn't stop
a fair number of people from doing it). Beyond that Mac's are immune to
viruses too, and not installing protection on a Mac is like saying how you
don't need to drive with a seat belt because you're a better driver than
most. If you truly want to be safe from viruses, the Apple IIGS isn't a bad 
place to start, I think there were only a total of 7 viruses ever written. ;)

>> The thing I've noticed about Mac commercials through the years is that THEY
>> NEVER SHOW THE PRODUCT. Isn't this like advertising 101? How are people
>> supposed to know what to buy if they don't see it?
>
>So, please tell me again what product the new Apple commercials are
>selling? iMac? MacBookPro? Or is it the G5 towers? Well, the truth is
>'None of the above', or to be more precise 'all of the above'.
>Apples new advertising is more in line with 'brand advertising',
>which means it's not purely selling a specific product, it's
>selling the 'Macintosh brand'. Now there's a piece of advertising
>101 for ya.

    So Apple is selling a state of mind more so than an actual product?
Macintoshes have become more of a fashion statement these days,
people buying them like they would a pair of designer jeans or an
overpriced sports car. Or decorative art, which isn't so far off the mark. :)

    Makes sense. I mean, they no longer are using superior (proprietary)
technology and parts. They no longer are easier to use or offer something
unavailable that the PC cannot do. It's all about cosmetics now--the glossy
candy-like look of the OS (which I'll admit, I do like) or the sleek and
artsy cases. What's inside is just essentially a plain old PC now. Once 
running OS X on the PC goes mainstream it'll be all about physical look.

>I for one wouldn't use a XP over OS X if you paid me to. And yes, I
>have used XP. I even have a ThinkPad running XP gathering dust in the
>corner of my room. It comes out on very rare occasions when I need to
>run a piece of obscure software (which usually has something to do with
>maintaining my vintage computer habit) that is only available on
>windows. So I admit there are uses for XP on occasions for me.

    Windows XP is just as stable as MacOS X. And in terms of functionality
and ease of use, I actually prefer Windows. Why? OS X wants to be so
friendly and cute, it goes out of its way to limit what I can or cannot do.
It also doesn't want me poking around too much.

    In any case, saying you wouldn't use XP even if someone paid you is
just reenforcing old stereotypes about previous versions of Windows (3.1,
95, 98 or ME). If you lump them all together and think of them as one, 
that's just wearing a blinder. XP is a different from the ground up from
those. My only issue with Windows XP is it's either very ugly or very bland
and dull (Windows Classic Style) compared to X.

>However the biggest problem I find when using windows is the huge
>amount of completely crap software that is available for it. If you
>want something equivalent to say iPhoto, then you have the option of
>maybe 15 different pieces of software. 14 of which are turds, and one
>is good. I find myself wading through and installing up to 6 different
>titles until I find the best one, and usually it is no better than
>what's available on the Mac anyway. This is my humble opinion. I told
>you I was in a confrontational mood.

    Lack of choice is a good thing? And that is putting a lot of blind faith
and belief that the one single product (versus a dozen or so for the PC)
will always work the way you want it, flawless in design/features and
automatically "the best". In any case, this may soon be moot as 
publishers just release Windows versions of software for Mac users.

    I prefer choice, I can select a program that fits my particular needs
and wants, and competition ensures a continual improve and 
development. Look at word processing on the Apple IIGS--all we really 
had was AppleWorks GS, and it was unstable and slow. Whereas with
paint programs there were quite a few, and I liked that some offered
features others didn't. DreamGrafix had 256 color support, while Platinum
Paint had that classic MacPaint/PaintWorks ease of use. 

Mitchell Spector