The Mac is doooomed (tell me I'm crazy)

Mikuro

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
The Macworld keynote's announcements (and lack thereof) make me fear for the future of the Mac. At this point, I actually feel like Apple is phasing out the Mac OS.

PC journalists have been saying it since the 90s, and I've always just ignored them, simply assuming that they regularly enjoyed certain hallucinogenic substances. But at this point, I can't shake the feeling that the Mac OS is on its way out. The only difference is that unlike the pundits of the past, I don't think that the Mac OS will finally be killed by the market or by Microsoft or by the public's realization that Windows is better (ha!); I think it will be killed by Apple.

The signs have been coming for years, but I always felt like Apple was just "stretching", and that the heart and soul of the company would always be the Macintosh. Now I'm thinking "Apple's a business, and businesses don't even have hearts or souls." That much seems obvious.

A Macworld keynote with zero news about Macs seems like a dark sign to me. With the expected push into the phone and movie markets, I had hoped Apple would take this opportunity to reinforce the importance and relevance of the Mac. Instead, they ignored it completely. That makes it look like Apple doesn't really care, and the Mac is getting less and less important to them.

Let's look at the signs of the Mac's diminishing importance, and the excuses/explanations/mantras the Mac faithful (myself included) made when they first appeared:

1. Apple releases the iPod.
"There were no good mp3 players for Macs, so Apple made one. Apple's made peripherals before. It's a natural extension of their Mac business. *yawn*"

2. Apple adds Windows support to the iPod.
"Well, it only makes sense. As long as Mac support doesn't suffer, who cares? Besides, Windows users are still second-class citizens with their MusicMatch. It's a natural extension of their iPod business."

3. Apple makes iTunes for Windows.
"It'll give Windows users a little taste of the Mac. No harm there! It's just a natural extension of the iPod business. Apple doesn't want Windows users to feel like second-class citizens, they want them to love the iPod experience."

4. Apple launches the iTunes store. At this point, the iPod was undeniably a HUGE part of Apple and their future, and arguably a bigger part than the Mac OS.
"Music player, music delivery. It's just another natural extension. Apple is leading the way yet again!"

5. Apple announced the switch to Intel.
"It doesn't matter what chip is inside as long as it runs the Mac OS. — z0mg ibm is lamezorz and nevar got to 3GHz!!1! — Just because they use Intel chips doesn't mean they'll be 'PCs'."

6. Apple releases Intel Macs, and they are indeed just 'PCs'. As proof, Apple releases Boot Camp to allow Macs to run Windows normally (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?).
"It just adds value to the hardware. Why NOT give people the option? Windows users might buy Macs now and stick with OS X after they use it."

7. Apple releases the AppleTV and iPhone at a Mac show (no, THE Mac show), with no Mac-related news at all. They even drop the word "Computer" from their corporate identity and the word "Mac" from the name of OS X (in regard to the iPhone's OS, at least).
"Just another natural extension! Natural extension, I say! That Mikuro guy is such an idiot. Shyeesh."

Now go from #1 straight to #7. They've turned from "The Mac People" to a phone and media delivery company. That doesn't seem so natural. In the 90s, could anyone have expected Apple's biggest news at Macworld to be a freakin' phone?! No way.

I could have gone further back with the signs, all the way back to the purchase of NeXT, the return of Jobs, and the birth of OS X. It ties in if you want to look at it that way, but it takes more stretching, so I left it at the iPod.


And now, let me propose some more likely "natural extensions" for Apple over the next few years:

8. Apple releases Safari for Windows.
"Anything that wrests control away from IE is a good thing for Mac users. Safari is much more attractive to your average Joe than Firefox."

9. Apple releases Cocoa for Windows. Now making cross-platform apps is just as simple as making a universal binary. This is how they got Safari working so easily.
"Great! Now developers can write world-class programs that will run great on the Mac OS AND Windows! One less reason for companies to make Windows-only software."

10. Apple offers a BTO option to have new Macs ship with both OS X and Windows pre-installed.
"Some people do need Windows. They shouldn't need to pay the exorbitant retail price. This makes Macs more competitive. It'll help Apple push into the corporate world."

11. Apple releases iLife for Windows.
"As long as it turns a profit, why not? Remember, Mac users get this stuff for FREE. It'll make for a great 'halo effect'. It's a good example of the cross-platform power of Cocoa."

12. Apple starts offering "Macs" preinstalled with only Windows (and perhaps iLife) in major channels. Hardware sales soar.
"This makes Apple truly competitive with the rest of the market. A lot of Windows users like Apple's hardware as much as Mac users, so why shouldn't Apple take their money?"

And unlucky #13:

13. Apple announces the discontinuation of the Mac OS. Most Mac developers are already making "obese" binaries that run on OS X and Windows anyway, so Mac users will be able to use most of their favorite Mac apps (including all of Apple's) on Windows. Other developers will have enough of a heads-up to adapt their Mac apps to run on Windows. The sales of Windows-only "Macs" are big enough to sustain Apple' hardware division, and the Mac OS is simply no longer needed to sell the hardware.
"Well....uhh...The spirit of the Mac will live on! It was only natural. Apple makes luxury hardware and easy-to-use software. They don't need their own OS to do that. Yeah. The Mac OS is so 2000. It's time for the Next Big Thing! Apple realized that; they really have vision! The Mac OS didn't really fit with the Apple brand, anyway. They're a media and hardware company first and foremost."

And there ya go. Apple has transitioned to Windows as smoothly as anyone could have imagined. They still call their luxury PCs "Macs".



Basically, the Mac OS has always sold Apple's hardware. Back in the mid-to-late 90s, nobody in their right mind would buy a Mac if they didn't want the Mac OS. Everything Apple did was tied to the Mac OS — without it, the company would have had nothing and would have died instantly. As long as Apple was on the PPC, this was still largely the case (maybe they COULD have survived on iPods, but their computer division was still reliant on the Mac OS and turned a great profit). Apple's transition to Intel goes a long way towards uncoupling their hardware business from the Mac OS, and as we all know the hardware is where they make their big profits. OS X has been vital in getting Apple to the position they're in today, making great hardware that everyone drools over. But soon that hardware will be able to stand on its own in the Windows world. Once that happens, and Apple no longer needs the Mac OS to sell hardware, they can easily dispose of it without even hurting the bottom line — in fact, it might be hard to justify supporting it, since a lot of money goes into OS X, and it's the hardware revenue that funds that. Once the hardware is self-sufficient, so to speak, the Mac OS will have fulfilled its ultimate purpose, business-wise.

Let me ask you this: if Apple were planning this move to Windows as I've outlined, is there anything you can point to in the past few years that they would have done differently? I don't think so. All their actions have been timed perfectly for such a transition. That's what scares me.

Tell me why I'm crazy. I'd love to be convinced.
 
Yeah right, not going to happen. Macworld got its name when Apple just made Macs. Now they make other things so you can't expect them to just focus on the Mac every single one. They have other venues for that.
 
One has to look to SGI to see what happens when a company abandons their primary platform and eventually goes the Windows route exclusively. I don't think that Apple would be stupid enough to do that (or at least I would hope not). I do think the possibility of Mac OS X for regular PCs and Apple's branded Macs is slowly becoming a reality (at least to me). Here's what I think might happen. Take it with a grain of salt as it's only my opinion on the topic, especially when talking about Apple's name change (I pulled this from my blog entry on my website):
Something tells me that the loss of the "Computer" moniker will mean that Mac OS X will finally be available legally for PCs from other computer manufacturers. This version of OS X will initially be available as a separate purchase but the hope is to eventually have it preinstalled on non-Apple computers. I don't think that Apple will stop making Macs, however, as they still have a charm all their own and are fully insured to work with Mac OS X. However, PC manufacturers will have to adhere to Apple's "hardware compatibility list" in order to at least run Mac OS X on their systems (this is no different from what Microsoft already does with Windows). I also believe that Apple's hardware sales will not be cannibalized because they will have something that the other PC manufacturers won't have, and that's the ultimate integration and transparency between Mac OS X, Apple Macs, and all of Apple's other devices. You might want to try it with your non-Apple computers running Mac OS X (if this ever happens), but it won't ever be as elegant as it would with an Apple-branded Macintosh.

You're probably thinking to yourself "wouldn't that make every other computer a Mac?" Yes and no. Yes, it would become a Mac, per se. However, the "Mac" or "Macintosh" name will become a model name, like we've seen with names like "iMac, "Mac Pro", "Macbook", etc. It will be a trademarked name (if it's not already) and other PC manufacturers won't be able to use the name. This isn't that much different than when the Mac OS was licensed during the 90s (Motorola called their Mac clones "StarMax" for example). Remember that Steve Jobs' other computer company, NeXT, started out making their own computers and eventually dropped the hardware and made the NeXTSTEP operating system available for regular Pentium PCs as OPENSTEP. Unfortunately for that company, it was too late. Even the Mac OS licensing scheme during the 90s was unsuccessful, but remember that this was done during Apple's darkest years and they didn't have the market's mindshare...this is why Steve Jobs "killed the clones" when he returned to Apple...he needed to build the Apple brand before attempting something like this. However, with Apple riding high on the Intel switch, the iPod, and Mac OS X, something like this would be a boon for increasing market share by getting those people who can't afford even the cheapest Mac to actually try out OS X on their PCs (software is cheaper than hardware). They could later choose to stick with their current PCs running OS X or switch to a better-integrated solution from Apple that would work seamlessly with the iPhone, the AppleTV, the iPods, and everything else Apple makes.
Click to expand...
Again, it's out there and I'm probably wrong (maybe even definitely). But since we're talking about doomsday predictions, I thought I would include my thoughts. :p

Flame on! :D
 
Actually, that makes a lot of sense, Nixgeek, and it also fits in well with my reasoning. Either way (killing OS X or opening it up), Apple needs to detach their hardware from their software, so that they don't need OS X to sell their machines. To open up OS X, I think they will still need to start shipping "Macs" with Windows, otherwise they would not be able to compensate for the loss of hardware sales from people using OS X on other PCs (which is the main argument against 'cloning' you hear these days).

Captain Code: I would say that Apple has "other venues" for non-Mac-related news. Macworld didn't used to be about Apple so much as the Mac. Apple is already converting Mac fandom into "Apple" fandom very well. For instance, it's hard to find any site these days dedicated to Mac news; they all feature iPod news at the very least. That's exactly what makes my doomsday scenario possible — the Mac is slowly becoming unnecessary to Apple's success, even among die-hard Mac fans!
 
I hope Apple gets their hands in as many electronic products as possible. I'm tired of companies making ugly, non intuitive products. Everything I spend money on I do it right. I hope Apple makes HDTVs!

Look at a MacBook pro next to a Dell or HP laptop. 50% of the reason I purchased a Mac was because it makes anything else look goofy, cheap and horribly designed. The other 40% at least is because it was my 1st Mac and I had the "windows" safety net. But you know what? It's only been 6 months and I deleted windows cause it was hogging hard drive space. I despise using windows on any computer now, I will never go back from OS X or whatever else OS Apple designs. I'm a "Mac Geek" now. And following me are probably 3-4 friends at least. All because of the "intel" switch.

The iPhone is coming and I'm ecstatic. I KNOW it will be designed to the same high user expectations as all Apple's other products. I don't even need to use one. I will pre-order one as soon as possible.

Steve Jobs is a very very smart guy. He knew what he was doing more so than people probably give him credit for. The MAC is going NOWHERE! Don't be paranoid because Apple is spreading into other products.
 
I just look at the comparative advantage mac OS has over Windows, and despite this fact Windows still holds a very large portion of the market share. I would bet Microsoft has really emulated the mac style with Vista, focusing on a more fun and people friendly pc. Considering the mac os only holds 5-6%?? of the market share, how will they be able to keep this huge comparative advantage if Rockefeller microsoft is focusing on being more like them.
The truth hurts.
 
8. Apple releases Safari for Windows.
"Anything that wrests control away from IE is a good thing for Mac users. Safari is much more attractive to your average Joe than Firefox."
Click to expand...

No reason to release it for the PC. Safari is based on Konqueror rendering engine. Konqueror is available for "regular PCs" (although its current PC incarnation is part of Linux KDE Desktop manager) Remember in the past Apple included Internet Explorer as main browser in OS9 and early versions of OSX 10.0 - 10.2. Lots of people screamed "sellout" too, back then.

Believe me, Firefox (brand if you want to call it that) is very well known to most of the average Joe nowadays. There were lots of articles puplished - even in magazines which usually don't deal with IT tech.

9. Apple releases Cocoa for Windows. Now making cross-platform apps is just as simple as making a universal binary. This is how they got Safari working so easily.
"Great! Now developers can write world-class programs that will run great on the Mac OS AND Windows! One less reason for companies to make Windows-only software."
Click to expand...

The cocoa framwork is more complex than a few dll files.
The whole system and design strategy which is used to link the GUI and the background code together is really different from that which Windows offers.

The main draw of buying a Mac or similar device is the operating system. OSX is the face of the mac. Would you buy the iPhone with *gasp* Windows Mobile on it? My planned purchase wouldn't be an imac with Windows and I probably won't use the bootcamp function at all.

I like that there is a option to use Windows, because unfortunally we live in a Windows centric world. Actually my first plan was to purchase a Mac pro + a second screen just to have everything in one machine, but I realised that I wouldn't use the power the mac pro offered - at all. And a 20'' or 24'' imac does the same, provides a nice screen and has an operating system which is far more elegant compared to the product Microsoft offeres. I still have a Windows PC which runs all current games.

10. Apple offers a BTO option to have new Macs ship with both OS X and Windows pre-installed.
"Some people do need Windows. They shouldn't need to pay the exorbitant retail price. This makes Macs more competitive. It'll help Apple push into the corporate world."

Whoa, I don't believe Apple would pull a "Palm" there. Steve would be really embarrassed too because for hundrets of Keynotes he teached us that OSX is faaaar superior. Now imagine him standing on the stage starring into space and mumbling into his microphone: "Hm, maybe OSX wasn't to great after all." Despite this, it would be to much trouble and to much cost to support an additional operating system out of the box IMO. (a operating system Apple doesn't have any control over)

Concerning your iTunes statement. iTunes is a frontend for quicktime - a pretty one, but still a frontend nonetheless. Its currently the only Windows program besides Quicktime because Apple wants to push its own media format into other platforms and markets. (the iPod worked well, now they try with a own phone)

Imagine the iLife suite without the backings and features of OSX. No or lesser support for scripts, inferior drag and drop support combined with the quirks and issues of the Windows OS - just to name a few examples. It would not make sense at all. Vista - to some extent already has reworked media management applications. iLive without OSX doesn't seem to be very attractive at all on another OS.

Why would Apple consider getting rid of MacOSX? In your post you wrote they are shifting away from OSX. Even if they do this doesn't necessary mean they'll go the Windows route.

Maybe its true that IBM and other PowerPC manufacturers didn't get their things together to make a decent offering. There are not many more platforms left to jump over than x86 and the "64bit equivalent".
 
I see all the cross migration a good thing for Mac.. not windows. Can you imagine how many people would dump windows and PC if through Wine or Crossover in the future you could run any windows game inside OS X? The ONLY reason I still need windows is to play RealFlight G3. If Parallels offers GL support they will be getting $79 of my money. (with a bootleg windows =)

I see Apple's share of the computer market jumping greatly over the next year. I have a BOLD prediction that if things keep moving forward and developers create complete game and software mesh inside OSX.. Apple's market will go from 7-10% to 50% over the next 3+ years. Very bold prediction I know. I'm talking MAC computers running OSX.. not some shameful Mac running windows or PC running OSX.

It seems all the NEW Mac guys are the excited pumped ones about Apple's future. All you tried and true Mac historians all seem pretty upset over the past year.
 
When OS X on Intel was announced, IIRC, it was added that every release of OS X had been ported to Intel. Seems like an awful lot of work for an operating system that's going to get the chop. Would've been a lot easier to announce Intel Macs running Windows in the first place, doncha think?

Relax. I imagine OS X will be around for a while yet.
 
Ifrit, I'm glad you think my predictions are impossible. But I disagree.

Remember that Cocoa began life as a cross-platform API. You may say it's technically infeasible, but then people said the same thing of moving OS X to Intel, and it turned out Apple had it running in their labs all along. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has similarly been developing Cocoa with cross-platform compatibility in mind all along.

Vista has equivalents of all the core features of the OS X GUI — Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Quartz Compositor, etc. — so it would certainly be possible to use OS X's APIs to build Windows GUIs. Apple could even make Cocoa-Windows apps look like Aqua if they wanted! (That'd be dumb, but hey, they did it with iTunes for a while.)

As for iLife, so much of the interface is self-contained that I think it would be fairly easy. Again, Vista has all the underlying technologies already.

macbri said:
When OS X on Intel was announced, IIRC, it was added that every release of OS X had been ported to Intel. Seems like an awful lot of work for an operating system that's going to get the chop. Would've been a lot easier to announce Intel Macs running Windows in the first place, doncha think?
Click to expand...
No, I think that would have been suicide for Apple, because they had no weight in the PC world at that time (they still don't, really). Right now, Apple still relies on OS X to sell Mac hardware. As long as they do, it not only makes sense to keep Mac OS X, but it would be suicidal to abandon it. They can't just cut the cord and switch to Windows overnight. It would leave Mac users completely stranded, and Windows users would not embrace Apple's machines quickly/fully enough. They would have no market penetration, and the PR alone would destroy them! If Apple is to succeed as a PC maker, they need to move very gradually — which, as I outlined, they've been doing for years (if you want to look at it that way).

It seems backwards and almost pardoxical, but I really think Apple has made all the right moves for a company that's moving that way. That doesn't mean they are, of course. I included the Mac-centric justifications for each of Apple's stept in my first post, and I believe they're all valid (well, with an obvious exception or two). But each of these actions still fits with the theory of Apple moving to Windows.
 
I have to agree with Mikuro on ost of this, but in the end as with all business decisions it will come down to money. Apple has been moving away from the computer as a computer. and more to the computer as a media centre, as have Microsoft for the last few years.

I don't think this will necessarily spell the death of OSX, but I would not be surprised if in 10 years time Apple no longer manufactured computers. They have a small, but significant market share but that is not based on its hardware, but its software because to run OSX you have to have a Mac, if that tie is broken then OSX may flourish and eat into the various Linux distros that abound in the computing world not to mention some Windows systems.

I happily run both a Mac and a Windows PC, but when it comes to replacing them, I will have to think long and hard about the Mac mainly due to cost, they are still more expensive than equivalent non-Apple hardware. Unlike some of the other posters to this thread I do not have enough disposable income to choose something expensive just because it looks better.
 
The sky is falling for sure. I think if Apple was going to kill off Macs, or OS X there would have been other times that they would have been more likely to it.

Macworld may not have had any new macs, but considering what was released I think that's ok. The appleTV and iPhone were interesting and compelling announcements. Would a new macbook that's a speed bump release been a better keynote? I doubt it.

I have no doubt that Apple will continue to branch out into more areas, and I think you will see the traditional "computer" will evolve.

As for long term predictions, 10 years down the road, who knows? Personally, I think Apple gets what is important to consumers; a system that works as designed, is easy to use, and let's the consumer get to the data and information that they want in a format that works and is suitable for the device at hand.

Apple gets that where we need to be going is most people want to be consumers. They don't want to be users, programmers, or their own IT support.
 
Apple did not announce the OS X release because:
1. It's not quite ready.
2. It's waiting for Vista push to the consumers
3. It's waiting for Vista upgrades to start creating all kinds of problems on PCs
I think we will have to wait for a few more months before OS X is being released.
 
I agree somehow with Mikuro. The main point is and stays:

Long ago without Mac OS (mostly 9 and X) Apple wouldn't have survived. Now this changed.

Now, they don't need it anymore to stay alive! They have iPhone, iPod, iTunes, AppleTV and more. Of course it's a great thing. But Apple isn't centered about Mac OS anymore, rather about mobiles, set-top boxes, mp3 players, soon TVs and who knows what else!
 
Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

Look at Apple's financial numbers, the Mac is growing like crazy, 48% of those who buy a Mac at an apple store are NEW owners.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

The lack of new Macs at MacWorld just means that Steve had something more exciting to announce... and I am sorry to say, that a bump in the processor speed is not going to dazzle the crowd. We all know that, we Apple fanatics like to be dazzled!

I would like to see some new form factors for the different models, but quite honestly, I think the Intel transition took up more than a few spare cycles of peoples time. Changing the design was probably not the best way to come out with new hardware. But, the MacBooks are different, and I bet we will see some transition to new form factors in the next 12 months for one ore more systems.
 
Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

Look at Apple's financial numbers, the Mac is growing like crazy, 48% of those who buy a Mac at an apple store are NEW owners.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

The lack of new Macs at MacWorld just means that Steve had something more exciting to announce... and I am sorry to say, that a bump in the processor speed is not going to dazzle the crowd. We all know that, we Apple fanatics like to be dazzled!

I would like to see some new form factors for the different models, but quite honestly, I think the Intel transition took up more than a few spare cycles of peoples time. Changing the design was probably not the best way to come out with new hardware. But, the MacBooks are different, and I bet we will see some transition to new form factors in the next 12 months for one ore more systems.
 
I understand all the logical sequences behind your argument, Mikuro. However, the entire time I was reading your post, I couldn't help but to hear the PC guy say "..and you guys are selling like hotcakes, it's time to pull out all the stops..."

Apple will NEVER drop the Mac. Remember the 80's?; Apple is not about to tear out their heart and run along with the PC market because of money. They already have an exorbant amount of that stuff.

I wouldn't believe for a second that Steve Jobs would drop the very basis of creation, the very machine that fueled his passion and his career. He wouldn't drop each one of us on our asses, leaving us nothing but the bitter taste of whatever MS gives us after Vista. There will be a Mac OS as long as there are supporters of the Mac OS; hasn't that been proven before? I know the success of Apple is no longer tied to their hardware, but why the hell would they stop tying the incredibleness of their UI to the machines they've set their souls in for the past 20 years?

The change from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple Inc is nothing more than what ITMS was to ITS. While we can eliminate sylables because of expansion, we cannot eliminate basis because of expansion.
 
ScottW said:
Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.
Click to expand...
As far as the advertising goes, that's more the hardware. As I've outlined, Apple's hardware ("Macs") will continue to be a vital part of Apple's business even if OS X ("the Mac") is killed. When was the last time Apple advertised the Mac OS itself? I can't remember.

Of course, I can't blame them; an OS is not an easy thing to advertise. You can show the genie effect or exposé all you want at Macworld and geeks will scream like little girls over a boy band, but that kind of thing won't sell on a TV spot aimed at the general public. I get that.

But the fact remains that the things they've been advertising are not so much the Mac as A) Their hardware, B) iLife, and C) iPod/iTunes. None of these are dependent on the Mac OS in the course I described.

In fact, the advertising of their hardware would be vital to the transition, because it increases their brand recognition, and that's what it will take to get Windows users to buy WindowsMacs if/when Apple starts shipping them.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.
Click to expand...
What would they have done instead? That's the key question here, and I can't think of a good answer.

limike28 said:
I think if Apple was going to kill off Macs, or OS X there would have been other times that they would have been more likely to it.
Click to expand...
Again, what would they have done instead? WHEN would have been a better time? (And if there were a better time in '97 or earlier, I don't think that matters, because I certainly don't think Apple had any intention of dropping the Mac OS back then. If that's what they're planning, I believe it's a Jobs-era strategy.)
 
Well, unlike Windows, the Mac and the operating system are one in the same. iLife doesn't run on anything but OS X. The ease of use they promote, isn't just the applications, it is the operating system.

They don't have two products to sell, the have one... the Mac. OS X is worthless without a Mac. If you want to sell someone something, you have to sell them the whole thing, not just one. If you promoted OS X and people went in buying it... and then return it because it doesn't install on a PC? Thats lame. People would be mad.

To me, they are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Also remember, while the OS is great, it's not the OS people are concerned with.

When people ask me about if Macs can do things, they don't ask me, "Can you double click and open folder?", "Does it have drop down menus?", Does it have icons?", "Does it include COPY/PASTE?".

The questions I hear is, "Does it run Office?", "Does it manage photos?", "Its virus free right?". Granted, the last question does apply to the OS, but guess what... Apple talks about that in their commercials. So, that is one example of the OS at work in the advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top