Losing faith in Apple?

Fryke, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Frankly, ManicDevlin, some of us couldn't care less about cost vs performance. If you do, I see why you would have a problem with the Apple platform. But nobody is making you use it, why complain about it? If you have the funds to buy what you want, why should I care? We're willing to pay the premium for our choice of computing platforms....

Why buy a hamburger at Applebee's when you can go to McDonalds for 1/3rd of the price? Why buy a BMW when a Kia gets you from point A to point B just as fast?


I'm sure Fryke wasn't ignoring the cost vs performance ratio. He probably just doesn't care either.
 
There is a local hanburger chain (Tom Wahls) that has a great ad that makes the point. The tag line for the ads is "Sure you can buy a hamburger for 39 cents, but then you'll have to eat it!"

I think that says it pretty well.
 
Answers:

Q: What is it about the Apple platform that makes the web browsing experience so horrible?

A: I have no idea, but it's getting old. I would like to know as well. Downloading and page rendering on my machines is plenty fast on a DSL, but Flash is noticeably slower than my PC. However, A Shockwave 3D project I'm working on runs considerably better on my Mac (Dual 1 GIG vs. 800 PIII). I doubt Shockwave is DP aware. And don't even get me started on the whole window resizing thing. I've been complaining forever about that. As for Explorer crashing. I have never had IE crash once in OS X and I've been running OS X exclusively for a year. I do a fair amount of web development too. I still find IE the best browser. It simply works, like it or not. But that's a whole different argument.

--------

Issue #2: Launch of web services too much for Apple to handle?

I have .Mac, but I don't really use it. When I do, I find it slow in navigation, but reasonably fast at UL/DL once it gets going. I think .Mac at its core is a good quality service that helps to complete the Apple experience as an integrated service. .Mac is brilliantly connected to the OS (desktop mounting, nice). For me, .Mac has never caused trouble, so I think it is of value.

--------

3. Where is the future?

The future is steadily increasing performance on a constantly refined OS. I am very happy with my Mac today. It will only get better over time. Your point about the performance plateau is actually an argument vastly in Apple's favor. Apple has been very strategic, brilliantly so I might add, in positioning itself as the Digital Hub with a wonderful suite of very useful and usable apps. On the high end, they have again been incredibly smart in buying out quality companies and their software. As long as they can keep it all from becoming a hodge podge (like DVD Studio Pro is now), it will be a great move. This position as a smart, efficient tool helps soften the speed argument. I too am always lured by the speed of the dark side (I do a lot of video editing, 3D rendering, Photoshop, etc. so every bit helps). But I also know from experience that every time I move in that direction, I get burned. As for a "REAL reason to switch", I think Apple's digital hub and its simplicity and the fact that it "just works" is a damn good reason for some people to switch (I saw a couple in their seventies last month at the Apple store walking out with an iMac, their first computer ever). It's unfortunately, not much of a reason for a web developer to switch.

Final Note:
Most every anti-Apple argument is based on the speed thing. Yes, it bugs me too at times, but Apple is at the mercy of chip manufacturers that don't make the bulk of their money on said chips. It's kind of amazing that Apple is even able to be where they are given their market share. It really is. If Apple is ever able to close or come close to narrowing the speed gap, there will be nothing left to complain about except price, and I will gladly continue paying a premium for the best overall experience.
 
I really don't understand what the whining is about here. Through my company I had the chance not only to buy one of those cheap dells, but I would've gotten $500 bucks off of it. Instead I am saving for an ibook or powerbook to compliment my g4 tower. I have not had any of these websurfing problems, though I do go back and forth between IE and Chimera, and I have dsl. I also run a server off of the same box 24-7, and only when it is really chugging do i notice a big difference in web surfing.
I'd say that the only real problem with speed is u/dloading to an idisk, but even that has gotten much faster.
As for other things, I have several of the latest games, which run beautifully even on this 2 year old dual g4. Until I can upgrade to PS 7, I have learned to deal with PS6 running in Classic, and although that sucks, i know all I have to do is grab the upgrade.
I guess the only thing i can complain about for now is the idisk problem, and lack of printer support for my epson photo 700.
I'd rather bug people about when halo2 is coming out or why I can't afford a 23inch hd monitor.
 
...I don't smoke the thing which most of you seem to enjoy smoking!

I have seen ANYTHING that the Dark Side has to offer up to 2.6 GHz (Intel/Amd) and dual rigs up to 2.2 GHz (Intel/Amd)...

BUT, also I have seen ANYTHING that the Apple Side offers (Dual 1.25 GHz)...

And guess what? With the Apple box I can do MOST stuff at the same time... Or in the majority of apps the Apple performs if not faster than the PCs at least is very close to that (including the dual PC systems).

Where the Mac CANNOT touch the PC is the gaming... The PCs have more frames when it is time to play but then again the XBox beats 99% of PCs out there when it is game time!

I read all your whining for Macs NOT being fast enough or that they are TOO slow compared to the PC and I laugh with your whining... Why? Because I am sure that the majority of you JUST read about fast machines and NOT using them... Because ANYONE who used the dual Macs know the truth: Macs are TOO fast if not faster than the top PCs out there but Macs can do MORE stuff at the same time without resorting to instability, slow performance, REALLY slow interaction with it's user wishes and many other bad things that occur when you use a PC for many things at the same time... Encode a DVD on a PC while burning a CD, while listening to the music, while playing a DVD, while downloading from the internet, while doing MANY other things on a PC? Yeah, sure: Make me laugh some more...

And if you can do the majority of the above stuff at the same time, it is because you bought a PC which costs the same if not more than a modern Mac!!!

Go ahead and whine ALL you want: Macs ARE fast! Faster then PC? Yes and No! Hell, BMWs are NOT faster than Golfs (VW) but at least I prefer a slow BMW than ANY Golf VW out there!

The above is a repost from another posting...

Anyways, Apple may not be in its best form but it will be in January/March methinks... Losing faith in Apple? Yes if one is a sheep like a lot guys seem to be around here...


Windows experience is better/cheaper than Mac? Yeah... Sure... If you read the prices wrong... Check the prices again mates because you have this ALL wrong!
 
hulkaros,
They weren't saying PCs are better / cheaper.

They were saying PCs are faster / cheaper.

Apple retains "better".

But you can't argue that PCs do the same thing faster and cheaper. They just do.

Apple just needs to raise speed a bit, and lower cost a bit. Everything else about apple is great.

As for web browsing.... try Navigator. Navigator (formely known as Chimera) solves all speed issues. It is still beta though!
 
As I'm bored with long posts, I'll try to make this one short :)

Yes, it's a shame Mac is slower than Windows on the Web. I hate this .mac stuff. Apple's future ? Faster machines, faster OS, better OS.

Yes, Windows users have better hardware, more software, better overall speed than me.
But I'm a Mac user, and I'm more creative than all my PC friends. Plus, I have stability and simplicity on my side.

I'm not asking for more. I know I would be less creative with a PC. Even with this forum rendering faster or the Acid application on my desktop, I would be less creative. I think different : you think the processor speed is decisive, I think my own head is. And fcuk those who like to think the opposite : Apple has complete and persistent leadership in graphic design, and I know why.

wow :D
 
That was cool, Toast.

Some of these posts border on completely bloodless pseudo-analytical dissections of what is a simple matter.

I don't buy these 'let's crunch the numbers...because I can add' approaches to the problem. The Macintosh remains the computer for the rest of us. Go with God if you decide to go Windows.

But OS X is fine, if balky, and the hardware can be improved. This doesn't amount to a betrayal. It's a transient problem that can be solved.

To say Apple is on the 'wrong track' is hubris. Show me the track. There IS no track. Half the time Apple MAKES the track that other, um, entities follow.

eshine&7
 
Cost/Performance. I was TALKING about just that, wasn't I? 2.2 GHz is not a number of performance for me. Getting the job done in time is a number of performance for me. Getting paid for the job done in time is Cost/Performance for me. And having fun working on the project at the same time is certainly good paid performance.
 
Originally posted by fryke
And having fun working on the project at the same time is certainly good paid performance.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Good extrapolation of what I wrote three posts above, IMO.
 
Perhaps this discussion has gotten a bit off track so let me try to get back to the core. I didn't try to provoke the age-old debate on PC vs. Mac. We are all past that. What I really wanted to express is my concern for Apple's future.

When Apple announced the first iMac in 1998 (or was it the year before) there was direction. It was a real eye-opener and the iMac along with Jobs' return meant a change in the personal computer indsutry altogether. I bought stock at $13 at that point and sold it near the peak at around $50. Why? Because I saw what Apple was doing and I was encouraged by it:

1. Innovation
2. Moving towards cost competitiveness with Wintel machines
3. Announcing new hardware that met the expectations of the community

But back in 1998 processor speeds doubled every 12 months and that's what people expected.

Today people are happy with their 1.5 year old G4/500 Powerbook. And that's where we are. Apple won't get another $3K out of my pockets to buy the next generation Powerbook because I don't need more performance in the next 2-3 years. What I really need is a better OSX that doesn't crash (and YES, OSX crashes, no doubt!), and runs more efficiently (no beach balls).

I am also less confident because of the diversion caused by .mac. Not only do I not understand how an ASP model fits in with Apple's strategy (eWorld all over again?) but being a subscriber I must also say it plain stinks. The service is unreliable and totally damages Apple's marketing say that MacOSX never crashes (I know .mac is not on OSX servers but most people don't). I feel like there is no value in it unless you consider a 100MB disc drive as a backup medium value.

In any event, Apple is not giving me the confidence I wouild expect from a company that I have poured thousands of dollars into year after year. Finally, Apple is stepping on a lot of people's toes by threatening no to attend MacWorld Expos in Boston. With their renewed committment to education they should be all over Boston with 350,000 students and about 100 Universities.

Apple, make me believe again.


G
 
People in this thread don't seem to know what they want. A more performing hardware? Yes&No: some compare to PCs and blame slow internet rendering; other's don't mind, they just find OS X to be crap, because in their PERSONAL user experience OSX crashes all the time, and Aqua is slow. A better OS? Yes&No: OSX is just some new OS that needs a few improvements, much better anyway than Windows or Linux. So what's the topic here? Working faster and faster and faster? Having an uncrashable OS X (put the human factor aside, jaguar never crashed on my slow Beige G3 266 with 8 peripherals)?? Paying less for better Apple products? Switching to PC soon, as soon as iMovie is ported to XP?? C'mon guys, the level of discussion is going lower and lower in this forum.
 
I have faith in Apple. I know some of you may be disappointed by the lack of "new" stuff at the latest keynotes, but hey, let's face it. You can only start a revolution only so often, otherewise, revolutions wouldn't be so... revolutionary. Apple started that with the consumer Apple II. Then the Macintosh. And then the first iMac, which, I believe, has served it's purpose. the little gumdrop became synonimous with the internet, and pop culture embraced it. iMacs started popping up everywhere, in front of people who hadn't even considered a Mac before...

My point is, there's no reason to lost "faith," just because a revolution hasn't started lately. We're now just sitting waiting for gradual improvements.

btw, I agree with Gedankenspiel... I'm perfectly happy with my almost 2 year old PowerBook G4... the longevity of Apple products are absolutely amazing... and don't even get me started about my iPod..... just read my sig. :D
 
Originally posted by hulkaros

Go ahead and whine ALL you want: Macs ARE fast! Faster then PC? Yes and No! Hell, BMWs are NOT faster than Golfs (VW) but at least I prefer a slow BMW than ANY Golf VW out there!

The above is a repost from another posting...
Click to expand...

Ummm.... who the hell said that? What stock Golf is faster than my stock M3 (not stock anymore, but that's besides the point)?
 
:confused: well, I think I said something about a BMW and a Kia but it had nothing to do with speed. I was speaking about quality and ambiance.

I was trying to convey the point that although both will do the job some of us prefer to spend a little more and do it in style.

BTW: Just for the record, I don't think that Kia would produce anything that would come close to touching BMW in performance. I've had a few Z3's and some of the M series that have gave my SS a good run for it's money :D
 
Faith in Apple or reasoning with my own Apple stuff?
I prefer reasoning. True, Jaguar on my G4 867 is a bit slower than their XP. But I don't care. Know why? Because "my neibourgh's grass looks always greener than mine".
Social psychology has explained it for decades with the term "social comparison". Ads and marketing strategies play on that. From my own standpoint, XP is not so ugly, less handsome than OSX though, somewhat faster, and so what? A friend owning XP is happy with it, but still meets several problems that we ignore under OS X. I'm a Mac user for about 10 years, and had also a walk on my neighbour's grass a few years ago that didn't feel me bad about my Apple experience. I need a real professional, stable OS, and Jaguar meets the standard 24/24, 7/7. We know Apple is still improving it. We know they trying to find better hardware solutions. It's fine like that. All other rumors are nothing but speculations, pure mind productions, like 99% rumors. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top