digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple's Mac Set to Soar

news.yahoo.com — The fact of the matter is that this is simply the Mac's time.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BamaMac, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8612 percent by 2012? Realistic or not? What are some of your thoughts. I believe it is very possible, especially now that Apple is starting to create a realistic competitor to Office, and people are growing tired of the bloated mess that PC manufacturers put out.
    • lo0ol, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3112 percent? I'm a huge Apple fan, but that's an extremely large number of computers. Part of the problem is that there's a huge install base already out there. That's why Apple's showing growth in shipped Macs but can't see a huge growth in market share- they're fighting both the current install base and they're fighting against the growth of the technology field in general. If you're talking about shipped personal computers, sure, I think Apple's going to start making a dent compared to other manufacturers. But whether or not Apple will make some serious headway against Microsoft on overall market share remains to be seen. One step at a time, after all. I don't think Apple's too worried, anyway: their Mac sales keep on growing.
      • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -33/+16I gave serious thought about picking up one of the new iMacs, I can format it and put Vista on it anyway since it's just a PC and I'm a .NET developer.

        But then I saw Apple want $850 to upgrade from 1gb of ram to 4gb of ram.

        Apple might be shining, but HP won this round.
        • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -6/+393rd party RAM and hard drives are ALWAYS much cheaper than from any manufacturer - Mac or PC
          • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The price difference is close enough from HP and Dell that buying it seperately isn't worth waiting for it to arrive.
        • aDJsavedmylife, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32It's the same if you buy a computer from Dell..they'll charge you £100 ($200) for a 500GB HD upgrade for example.

          You are actually allowed to buy your own RAM and install it you know..And you only have to undo one screw to get at the RAM slots ;).
        • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9that's why Mac people use a site like www.dealram.com to find a better price. memory prices on those sites changes almost daily. Apple changes their *maybe* every few months or even once a year. i assume other manufacturers are the same.
          as far as upgrading it yourself, every iMac in the last 7 years has had a simple user accessible hatch to open up and add/change RAM. on this model it's one screw and a small access hatch on the bottom of the machine.
        • over9, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Sure RAM might be easy, but what about Graphics card? Hard drive? I have read a lot of complaints from people about having to use 5 or 6 external drives just because they can't upgrade the Hard drive.
          • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10You can upgrade the hard drive on an iMac. It's not a simple as upgrading RAM, but it isn't rocket science either.
            However, the graphics card can't be replaced.
        • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6You're also a liar. No developer would ever purchase RAM from the vendor for their personal machine. They would buy their own RAM from newegg and install it theirselves.
          • shawnz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1if you're going to do that, why not just build custom?
          • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Meh. After dozens of computers I'd rather just click the upgrade box. HP and Dell don't charge $850 for an upgrade to 4gb, they charge a price that's so close to the going rate the difference is irrelevant.
        • macintalk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can get 4 GB of RAM for around $200 from a third party.
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -22/+6People getting tired of the bloated PCs? I don't think so.
      • Zippo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14I think so. A lot of people I know have switched within the last year or so.
        • over9, on 10/10/2007, -24/+7Personally I would call Macs more bloated because it comes with so much junk software I would never use.
          • dondara, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13You're joking, right? Maybe you wouldn't use them but at least they aren't just demo's like most of the crapware that new windows boxes come with.
          • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8over9: Macs come with a lot of software that is actually very useful.
            dondara: They also come with the iWork 30 day demo (but I must admit that iWork is not crapware)
          • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16And you know how easy it is to get rid of 99% of the parts of any app you dont want on a Mac? ? ? Drag -> Trash. On a PC, it's a ***** ordeal, it is, in fact so much of an ordeal, that when I bought my toshiba Laptop, before Intel Based Macs came out, I just erased the whole goddamn thing and started over.
          • DarknessGP, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12spuy767, Or you could just build your own machine and install windows without manufacturer crap at all.

            Something that is hurting Apple in my eyes, being forced to buy a Mac brand PC (Personal Computer) to run OSX. Seriously, I'd love to try out OSX, but I'm not laying down $1000+ when I already have a PC that's more than capable. Serious, You can install Windows on the Mac brand PC, but you can't install OSX on any PC legally? Shame on you Apple.
          • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12The reason that OSX works so well is that the computer was designed for the OS and vice versa. This is why Macs are so much more stable than PCs. Quality control
          • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Darkness: shame on you Apple? Both Apple and Microsoft are guilty of playing the proprietary game, just in different ways
      • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19They're tired of them alright, but they just don't know there's an alternative (or several). Unfortunately, there's a lot of myths surrounding the whole Macintosh platform, like that there's nothing that will run on it.

        Ever since OS X 10.2 came out, I have never been able to not find a Macintosh version of a piece of software, or an equal if not better alternative to previous piece of software.
        • capecodcarl, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2The trouble is not that nothing will run on it, it's that nobody can find any Mac software in the first place. There are three place in a 50 mile radius that carried Mac software: CompUSA, Microcenter, and the Apple Store. CompUSA went out of business months ago around here so that just leaves Microcenter and the Apple Store, both over 30 miles away from me. At those two stores there is a selection of, *maybe* 50 titles including lackluster games that came out for Windows PCs over 3 or 4 years ago yet are "new" on Macs so they charge the full $50 for them (even though the PC versions are in the discount bin for $20).
          • MrPineapples, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I just buy online? Games have always been an issue, they have recently signed deals & have got some big games in the works (I think EA have committed to simultaneous releases on PC & Mac).
          • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Nobody buys software in stores anymore, except "big" software like OS's, Word-processing, Video editing and Adobe apps.
    • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -22/+9uh PC manufactures dont make bloated PC's
      they make PC's with empty harddrives, then software manufactures bloat them.

      the only PC manufacture that makes software is apple, so unless you are describing apples PC's then you are talking garbage
      • podgey22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Software manufacturers? Do you know how computers are put together en-masse?

        They make a default software image which is basically a un-keyed copy of Windows (or whatever) and all the software preinstalled. They then duplicate that image onto a batch of HDs and use those HDs when they put the PCs together...

        Did you think that there's some guy at Dell walking from new PC to new PC with a bunch of CDs?
      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Wrong again. . . It is, in fact, the PC manufacturers that Bloat out the hardware. How is this you ask? Well, PC manufacturers allow every half assed dog and pony show piece of ***** software company with a few muchs to spare place icons on the desktop and rubbish on the hard drive in return for a fee that basicall subsidizes hardware. One of the oft overlooked reasons that Macs are slightly more expensive in some cases.
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5If people are indeed getting tired of the bloated PC's then they will switch to Linux as there is no incentive for them to pay extra for expensive proprietary apple hardware. If recent growth trends are anything to go by, Linux and Ubuntu in particular will soon overtake OSX in usage.
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Even on such a site such as digg with a vocal mac base, only 16% of the users use OSX
      http://www.modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk/article/the-demographics-of-digg

      I doubt they will ever crack 12% in the general market when there are cheaper options such as Linux if they get tired of Windows. I think they will just grow asymptotically towards 6 or 7% but not quite reach there.
      • malliemcg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15The problem with statistics like that is that work PC's will skew the results. No one here is likely to argue against the belief that currently most businesses use Wintel platforms for staff desktops. That means every digg user who visits from both their home PC and their work PC will get counted twice and likely a different operating system.

        From the extremely non scientific research and word of mouth around the office (technical area) approx 15% are current mac users at home and at least a further 10% who are seriously considering a mac for their next purchase. Of those new to mac's or considering it - the fact that Windows can be installed on it if they hate MacOS is a pretty big factor.

        (Disclaimer - I have a MacBook Pro, and a Whitebox PC in my home and a Wintel desktop @ work so perhaps I am a fanboi because I own me a mac!).
      • DAllenJ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5The general market is where Apple hs the best chance of reaching 12%. Digg attracts techies who are the most likely to use Linux. The general population, not so much. My parents have never even heard of Ubuntu, so for them and millions more "ordinary" users, the Mac remains the only viable alternative to windows.
      • smyph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Those charts are from 2006 when digg only had 100k users. Digg is well over a 1mil users now.
    • soapko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1anything is possible, i suppose.
    • michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Numbers will help get a lot of people, but gaming is still a bugbear. Even without games, 12% shouldn't be a problem. It's not as big a jump as one might think, and the more ubiquitous iPods and iPhones are, the more willing people will be to switch over to Macs (and, despite the article's myopic sense of history, the Mac's revival started with the second generation iPod).

      BTW, I don't understand the article: "yeah, the mac is great...beautiful...elegant...no spyware...easy to use...but I still wouldn't recommend it." WTF?
      • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Will there come a time when I recommend only Macs? No." ....*ONLY* Macs... he still recommends it...
        • Username222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are right, I have no clue why you are getting dugg down...
    • jblade, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7buried as Inacurate as this is just speculation and not news.
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12It's called an editorial. They can often be found in NEWSpapers.
    • twtmc, on 10/10/2007, -19/+7Macs are simply too expensive for most people. Buying a Mac is more expensive than building your own computer, which is more expensive than buying one made by a manufacturer. Were Apple to start competing with the pricing of HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc. THEN they could have a chance to reach that 12% market share. Until then, they are stuck with having to have elitist pricks keep them afloat by buying EVERY Apple product that comes out, regardless of price.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Riiiiight, all those Mac owners buying new Apple gear every few months because we can't help ourselves...

        Mac Plus (bought in 1987)- 6 years
        Performa 575 (bought in 1994)- 4 years
        Umax C600 (bought in 1998)- 3 years
        G3 300/AV desktop (bought in 2000)-3 years
        iMac 400DV for my kids (bought in 2001)- 4 years
        Pismo G3 Laptop (bought in 1998)-5 years
        Mac 933 G4 tower (Bought in 2002)- Still have and use it, now 5 years old
        iBook 933 G4 (Bought in 2003)- Still use it, now 4 years old
        iMac G5 for my kids (bought in 2005)- Still in use, now almost 3 years
        Intel 24-inch iMac (bought in Dec 2006)- Main machine for now

        So in 6 years I bought two computers for my kids. Only thing that needed to be updated was memory and hard drives. Average 3 years with no significant problems.

        In 10 years I've bought two laptops. Average 5 years (though the iBook required a motherboard swap paid for by Apple)

        In over 20 years I've bought 6 desktops. Only significant problem was a motherboard swap for the 933 tower (again, paid for by Apple AFTER the warranty expired), roughly 3.5 years for each machine with only additional memory and hard drives updated.

        Oh, I also bought one iPod nano (1st gen) that I've had for over 2 years.

        Never bought any full-size iPod for myself, didn't buy an iPhone (nor will I). I'm not a rich man and I demand that the gear I buy will last for a significant amount of time with minimal upkeep. I've got better things to do with my time than to bother with buying the latest graphics card to squeeze out another 15 frames a second for a video game that I won't be able to tell the difference on anyway. Your mileage may vary.
    • DAllenJ, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6...and when they start making the same trash as HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc. THEN they lose their customer base who've figured out that when it comes to quality, you get what you pay for. The best value doesn't always equal the lowest price.
    • magic6435, on 10/10/2007, -11/+212% woopty damn doo. wake me up when its 51%
      • gquaglia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Whatever dude. Its pretty damn good considering many were writing Apple's obituary just a few years ago.
      • CeeAyy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12This is not a race. Should we wake you when BMW has a 51% share of the auto market as well?
        • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1so 51% of the cars in the world at BMW? well ***** i'm stuck on the other 49%
    • witebuddha, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4thats why you build your own computer...

      I don't like HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, OR Mac...
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You are still in the build-your-own-computer phase of your life. You'll grow out of it. I was in your place 15 years ago.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How about Apple? Would you buy from them Sam-I-Am?
    • tweak567, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Business won't adopt this b/c of the integration of the monitor and all functionality so thats not going to help gain any market share there. I feel like the advent of the new laptops that were made on the idea of providing them to people in countries who never had access to computers will get a larger market share than apples anyways. A computer that costs a few hundred and does everything most people want plus its made durable. Oh and these iMacs are laptops you can't move around so why would you even want one. I think Macs are cool and all but these iMacs seem useless unless its for pure aesthetics as they look cool.

      Even mentioning 2025 made me annoyed... Who knows what computing will be like then, it very well could be vastly different than what we have today.
    • Crisender111, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Mac is set to soar!!!! LOL

      Yea, Rite in which direction? He he

      Come on fanboys. When will u accept Apple will never be on top?
      • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4By "soar", they mean "grow to 12% market share by 2012". Hardly "on top", but impressive at it represents about 4x the current market share. Even if that happens, it won't make a difference to trolls like yourself: they were at the ~12% mark in 1992 and nobody really cared, including software companies, who still used "small user base" as an excuse to ignore the Mac. There's nothing magical about breaking into the double-digit market share range, despite what many actual fanboys think.
    • Adma1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fact is Apple doesn't have to be a competetor to Office as MS releases Office for Macs (albeit a bit slower than Windows). I think MS has less to fear from Apple, being that Macs can install Windows, Office, etc, than it does from the Open Source movement.
  • iraq, on 10/10/2007, -37/+8Don't get me wrong, I love apple and all... but I seriously think the 'mac' name needs to go. It's reputation in the 80s will haunt the computer line until new marketing strategies (besides those funny commercials) are devised..
    • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15I dont think so. Though I do know that people that haven't seen the more recent models will go "ew macs", but people associate the brand with great laptops and a cool media centered OS.
      • BamaMac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Do they actually associate with the mac name or with the Apple name? The people I have talked to don't really know what a "mac" is, but they immediately associate with "apple" whether positive or negative.
        • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7In my experiences, I say "Apple," they say "iPods!" I say "Macs," they say "That white thing that is so awesome and has that cool Photo Booth program..."

          Obviously, my experiences tend to center around the depressingly naive gobs of teenage girls that visit the Apple Store everyday.
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I couldn't agree more
    • greenmountain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thats right. Everyone thinks Mac means a computer. Like Coke means a drink. Silly them.
      Time for a change:

      Golden Delicious. Ad has a blonde. Lots of licking. Variation on multi-touch.

      Granny Smith. Finally, one for the elders. Old pinstriped in grey OS retained. large fonts.

      Winesap. Includes iSot software to locate the nearest liquor store.

      Gala. Black turtleneck, black pants, scarf. A designers dream.

      Hauxapfel To convert the Linux crowd.

      Apple Pie fully baked. like you. includes USB
      detachable Apple Scent-O_matic. Fills the air with the smell of baked apples. Quickly becomes extremely popular upper class Bong.
  • bizzydiggin, on 10/10/2007, -21/+88I've seen a huge change in perception towards the mac. Switching to an Intel processor has saved the Mac in my opinion. I believe 12% by 2012 is overly conservative.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Since many people use Boot Camp to use Windows for Mac's shortcomings, it doesn't mean Windows is threatened at all. You are also talking about puny numbers compared to Windows, even 20% is nearly insignificant. Mac has a place, and right now that place is in the hands of multimedia power users, but not even 100% of them use Macs, sometimes due to preference.
  • ncaauwe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+144The author loses credibility for me in this paragraph:

    The introduction of Intel chips has not made the Mac OS more susceptible to virus attacks, though I wonder what the experience is like running Windows with Boot Camp on a Mac. Has anyone gotten infected?

    Yes grasshopper, you are truly running Windows, and you can get all the crap you can on any other PC. Why not try it before writing about it? It's been possible for a year and a half now.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35i've been baffled that people think the Intel processor would open the Mac up to all the virus/spyware that currently runs on MS Windows. that might explain something though. the same thinking would imply that people think Linux is vulnerable to all the same MS Windows virus/spyware problems? totally weird.
      • birdadderley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Those same people still believe in the tooth fairy...
      • birdadderley, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2=(
      • Username222, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2That is true, OSX clearly does not have the same file system as Windows. However, it is now slightly easier to write a virus for OSX since it now uses the mainstream Intel processor. But that also includes the pros of Apple switching to Intel, so there are more apps and it is easier to make apps.
    • slayerab, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The whole thing about putting windows on a mac and not getting a virus in the article reminds of the whole if you polish your car you drive really fast without getting caught by a police camera.
    • seeyounorth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Agreed. I have a hard time reading articles that lack fundamental research involved in making predictions.
  • bizzydiggin, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Ya that is a pretty stupid comment.
    • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15There is a "reply" button
      • birdadderley, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1yeah but he wants his comment to be seen and not buried. big head syndrome...
  • dbriansmith, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Adding .xls support in a mac friendly way is a very big deal...

    I personally think they should up the cost of the computer whatever they need to to include iWork on every mac they sell...
    then, it would come with everything you need to compatible with your windows box (for most users). With iWork only costing $79, it's a no brainer to go ahead and buy it, but including it would be a slam dunk...

    • zodieman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11In theory your idea is a good one. However, why should Apple give it away when PC makers don't include anything like that? Everyone "knows" that Word, Excel and Powerpoint are the only office programs on the planet right? By giving away an office suite they don't attach a value to it. Mom and Pop buyers buy Office for their new PCs because they don't know any better and it costs hundreds of dollars. Now, if the same people buy a Mac instead (not an impulse purchase however since the Mac is not as prevalent. Those are educated purchases) and see an office suite they can use and get still effectively communicate with the outside world they will GLADLY pay the $79 to get it and feel good about all the money they saved.
    • Radan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Also, raising the costs of the computers is not an option. When most people buy a computer, they never look at what software the computer ships with. What they see is that for the same price you can get a PC with more of those gigahertz-thingies than the corresponding Mac.
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I find it terribly ironic that My ***** Cell phone will read .xlsx documents, and my Desktop PC at work will not, and no, I can't install the Office X reader apps.
    • yabos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7They do come with the iWork Trial for 30 days with the full features. At least that's a start. People will either like it or not and may pony up the small amount of money for the great software it is.
    • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Has iWork gotten any better since version 1? I got it at launch, hoping to get away from MS Word which I can never seem to get to do what I want when I'm doing anything other than writing a standard doc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that v.1.0 had a long way to go. Sometimes I feel like Apple could wait just a little longer to add that extra polish that some third party mac apps I've seen have. Don't get me wrong, macs "just work", I just feel like they could do even better.
      • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I use Pages daily for page layouts for doing small business advertisement, fliers and posters. I have InDesign as well but in the end, there's no need for all the complexity that InDesign offers. I'm sure someone needs it, just not me. I am addicted to the automatic guide lines that all Apple layout programs have.
      • jhugg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Are you asking if version 3 is better than version 1? The answer is yes for almost any software. It's true here as well. Pages 3 is WAY better than Pages 1. And numbers is shaping up to be very nice.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Numbers is awesome especially for a version 1 product. Pages 3 is much better then version 2, which was better then version 1.
    • zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4$79 is still an awesome price for an office suite, especially compared to the full business versions of MS Office, and in terms of capabilities, it's a very nice set of apps. It can do everything the vast majority of regular users need, often with greater ease of use. I think Keynote is worth 100 bucks on its own, handily.

      As weird as it sounds, Apple kinda needs to charge for iWork. When a commercial developer gives something away for free, it's met with doubt/distrust in the business world. Sun had that problem with StarOffice - the product was good, but nobody was taking it, even though Sun just gave it away.
    • cyclopsface, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apple doesn't include iWork because MS would then stop developing Office for the Mac (and has probably said this directly to Apple). Apple made a deal with MS that they would stop trying to sue over the windows gui as long as MS kept supporting them with software (irc) so the companies probably have some long standing deals.
  • shad0walker, on 10/10/2007, -8/+132012 will be the year of the Apple desktop! Wait, a prediction about increasing use of something other than windows.. but its not Linux.. This isn't right.
    • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Linux still have a long way to go till it can compete with Windows and OS X for the average computer noob, I'm afraid. It's moving fast forward though.
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5People have been saying this for 15 years and it's true that Linux is moving forward swiftly but so are the others.
    • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13The year of Linux is every year according to Slashdot.
  • bizzydiggin, on 10/10/2007, -19/+10Forget 2012 I believe 2008 will be a huge year for apple desktops and their laptops sales will continue to grow. I say this while I type on my PC laptop, but whatever
    • zizzy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Well if it is going to be 12 percent by 2012, obviously 2008 will "be a huge year for apple desktops and their laptops sales will continue to grow." And so will 2009. And 2010. And...are you seeing the pattern here?
  • BamaMac, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Devised or despised? I actually find them rather funny. Over the top and extreme, but funny
  • zanent, on 10/10/2007, -27/+7buried as inacruate
    • BamaMac, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9How so?
    • IsmaelZ, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Hehe, dugg.
    • griz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Can you see the future?
      • an0nym0us, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Oh yes I do and guess what? You are not in it!
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5I buried your comment for the exact same reason.

      Seriously though, the Macs have the stats and facts in their favor. What do you have?
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You're dugg down for bringing nothing to the table.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What exactly does "inacruate" mean? Sounds like a foot fungus medicine sold by Madden.

      "GET TOUGH ACTIN INACRUATE!"
  • xnviews, on 10/10/2007, -22/+12Apple wont gain 12% market share *ever* because they're too controlling. They design for the niche market and unless they make changes they will always be in a sub 12% market. They can't open up the OS to generic x86 because then they'd lose control and become a windows surrogate. They can't open up the hardware because then they'd have computability problems like Microsoft. Therefore they will never hit a 12% market share. Even if Apple computer's ruled the market place with say 80-90% it would be far worse than our current situation because Apple would be controlling both your hardware and software whereas now Microsoft only controls your software. So I look forward for Apple to gain market share in the future but only because it will weaken Microsoft's monopoly however an Apple monopoly would be 2 times worse.
    • pavetheforest, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6when you're right, you're right. well said.
    • clyde2801, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4I think apple should open up older versions of osx, like 10.2 or 10.3, but it on bit torrent along with a list of hardware requirements, and a disclaimer that it won't qualify for free tech support (they'll either have to go down to the genius bar or pay for it over the phone). Maybe put a screen on the install suggesting that if they like OSX they should buy a mac with the latest version.
    • zodieman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Only in the computer business can someone have a problem with hardware/software monopoly ;) However this kind of thing happens all the time in the car business and nobody complains. You buy a Honda and you don't find Toyota-made interiors, or a Ford and BMW engines...
      Nope, we love the fact are all the "Fords" are cheap. Sure they give us a lot of headaches but since they all have the same interior made by GM (they introduced a new color and texture cloth back in January after working on it for 5 years) we feel safe in case our neighbors puke on the seats, at least we can get it cleaned up by the local pimply kid down the street who seems to have a knack for upholstery cleaning.

      Sorry, I'd rather have a well-built integrated European or Japanese "car". At least it will retain it's value after 1 year.
      • archer75, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Recent report from JD Powers puts Ford ahead of Toyota in terms of reliability. But nobody pays attention to that. You buy what you "think" is better.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1JD Powers and others reliability studies only take into account 1-2 years after purchase. In 10 years will be able to say whether the recent Fords are more reliable then Toyotas. Until then all we have to go off is there track record and Ford has a horrible track record.
    • Stirk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Let's not forget here, Apple's goal, like all other corporations, is to make money. They're profits are through the roof right now, and I don't see any reason for them to open up OS X. If they did, their Mac sales would plunge.
  • godamit, on 10/10/2007, -33/+10DO NOT WANT
  • ahhell, on 10/10/2007, -40/+18Who the ***** cares? Oh, I forgot the fanboys need something to jerk off to.
    • almalax19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Nothing less than a new Apple computer can get me off. New iPods get me close but can't push me over the top.
    • clyde2801, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10and a-holes need someplace to troll
  • mtbterain, on 10/10/2007, -24/+7Macs will deffinetly increase their standing in the market, but they do not serve enough purpose.
    Microsoft is traditional and fluid with how people work, and most people won't want to switch, there will be the few that will get macs and like them, but my freind especially, as an example baught a mac thinking it would be cool(his second laptop, other running vista) and played around with it and decided that its was no better, served no further purpose, and did nothing better, it even lacked as for anything he wanted every tiny program, he would need a patch

    i'm running vista and by far sub standard hardware, never had it crash, the only reason a mac won't crash is because all of the third party aps are well designed, not the software

    linux will by far command more market then mac
    • leejae, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I don't think Linux will ever own more market share than OS X cause Linux first of all has no marketing campaign. Nobody knows what it is. There is no incentive to make the OS any better because there is no profit in it. The only people developing the stuff are people that want to have fun with it. I have NEVER experienced a Linux computer nor have ever had the chance. I don't even know where to get a copy. On the other hand, Apple is a corporation with big bucks that has been pumping out ads and distributing their software and hardware to the entire world. There's also huge brand recognition.
      • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You are off base on so many different levels that it boggles the mind.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised if ALL computers ran on top of Linux eventually. If an open source OS has all the capabilities, performance and customizability you need, it would be foolish for hardware vendors to waste the effort developing their own OS, when they could just modify Linux or some other open source OS to fit their needs. As the Linux developer community keeps growing, and the rate of progress accelerates, it would become increasingly costly and impractical for closed source OSs to keep up. Eventually, the OS will be as much of a commodity as the CPU, RAM and other computer components, and the value will be added elsewhere, in services and additional software.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hopefully 20 years from now that will be the case. The only company even somewhat following that approach now though is Apple. So if you want Dell, HP, Sony etc. to switch there is no better way to do that then to buy an Apple. Maybe they will follow Apple's Model.
    • kiwifish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I am fairly proficient with linux (not a guru, but I've set up ubuntu several times, run a custom MythTV box for a while, and am happy with compiling my own software), and currently own a MBP that dual boots OS X & Ubuntu.

      I hardly ever use the ubuntu partition... There's really no reason to!
  • rockmyway, on 10/10/2007, -21/+6Mac cannot gain a huge market share, and can't just replace PCs. Not from a fanboy perspective, but from a logical perspective: http://feelin-supersonic.blogspot.com/2007/08/big-mac.html
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That would be a random blog of which I've never heard about before.

      A reliable source, it is not.
      • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0To talk like Yoda, you should not do.

        Wet dream it is, for mactards to take over world.

        Happen, it will not.
  • jazh, on 10/10/2007, -18/+9The Only way is Apple let their software WORK on other hardware. I would like to dual-boot OSX, but it not available...
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He's dug down, but entirely correct. If Apple's goal is to make serious inroads against Microsoft they will have to open up the OS. If they are happy with the profits they make being a niche player, and it seems they are, then 6% market share would be phenomenal. 12% or beyond is not something they can achieve in the next 5 years without a massive change in the way they do business.
  • Woolis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+96I bought one.

    I am not saying that I am the best indicator of the PC market, but I used to make fun of my friends who used Apple computers.
    • merf1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I am a recent switcher myself. I like yourself used to bash mac products and users, but then I installed Vista and was very UNDERwhelmed. I had read of all the OSX features MS BORROWED from OSX and I decided I might as well give OSX a go. I now use my macbook almost exclusively. Oh and BTW I am not a mac zealot by any means...I am a network admin at a company that is all MS and I have Linux and Vista pcs at home. I am competely comfortable using any of them to get things done....I just prefer my mac now :)
    • johnny5k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17"I bought one. I am not saying that I am the best indicator of the PC market, but I used to make fun of my friends who used Apple computers."

      Take this quote, paste it 5000 times. I think the 12% estimate is conservative as well. Apple has made an amazing turnaround of their image, and people are now softening up to the idea of a Mac like never before. I don't think Apple will ever be the majority-- but they certainly will be a much bigger competitor in the market.
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"I don't think Apple will ever be the majority"

        This will continue to be true unless Apple adds some more lower end (and priced) models to their product line. An inexpensive tower for a start. The Mac Pro is truly a great machine but admittedly our of the price range for most. My guess is that Apple doesn't care enough about market share to sell a machine they consider to be crippled.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why does Apple need to or ever want to be in the majority. Just keep doing what they are doing and they will continue to grow. I don't think there is anything they gain by having 51% of the market.
        • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why don't they just stop this silly nonsense of tying down OSX to their own hardware, which is all x86 stuff anyway!
  • mpn401, on 10/10/2007, -14/+63Mac stopped sucking when they dropped PowerPC.
    • macbookpromat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Amen, G5 was going nowhere fast.
    • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You know, the article brought up an interesting point. What WAS the major turning point for the apple platform? I think I agree that switching to intel was an excellent move, although at the time it had me worried (thankfully, rosetta was brilliant and it was as painless of a transition as I could have ever hoped for). I disagree with the article on the point that the iMac was a major factor. It's a solid machine, but I'm wondering if Apple could have gotten just as solid of a response from a middle of the line tower.

      Clearly OS X was a big move too - Apple got a huge jump by starting early with OS X, so now Vista was released less than a year ago and is including features out of the box that Mac people have been enjoying for years. But moving to OS X (or something similar) was inevitable in this day and age, so I think I can only attribute Apple's 'johnny on the spot' quality as a bonus point, and less so the actual OS.

      I think the Mac Stores have had a huge impact, however. Before that, macs were shoved into corners of your local CompUSA, and it was simply a question of under exposure due to being outnumbered. And when you sell something like an iPod, you'll have a fairly constant influx of potential users who are going to have to at least see something shiny when they walk in.

      I think the biggest hurdle left to Apple is finding a way to get people to open their minds to other alternatives. People are creatures of habit for the most part, and change is scary. As far as I'm concerned, by the time Apple gets all the kinks ironed out of Bootcamp and releases Leopard, all of the actual software engineering that matters will be complete (all they have to do is continue to offer solid products, they don't have to grease any more wheels for PC users, from what I can see) and all that's left is actually getting people to give their boxes a decent try. I think the change in wide-scope marketing to making the Mac look like a fashion statement as well as a computing platform (hipness) is something vaguely underhanded, but brilliant. People are always suckers for the cool brand.
      • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The MAJOR turning point for the Mac platform was the iPod. It changed the general public's opinion of Apple and the Mac in extension.
        • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The turning point for the Mac was that geeks started using it. History has shown us time and time again that the general masses will use whatever their "computer expert" friend is using. Whether or not the iPod had an impact in bringing the geeks to the Mac is debatable.
        • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I mentioned the halo effect in a vague way. I think it's a legitimate factor.

          And I'm not sure I agree, skidooer. A lot of people are wary of what platform nerds use, because they're worried about their own capabilities in comparison to said geek's. Also, are you sure that such a large portion of geeks have officially made the switch? I know some notables have written positively about the mac, but I think for the most part, Apple's new userbase is mostly non-geeks. All the geeks I know are diehard about whatever system they've always used, and are perfectly willing to pontificate about their system's benefits. And I'm sorry to say that I know a lot of geeks, because I am one. =
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I disagree. I think the switch to Intel will have a more profound effect on Mac sales than the iPod.
    • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I've got both a PPC and Intel Mac in front of me. I don't notice any real difference between them. Certainly not enough difference to say that the PPC one "sucks" when compared to the other.
      • splatterboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't know what your doing/not doing, but my macbook pro (2.16 core 2 duo) is considerably faster than my powerbook (G4 1.67 DL/SD) running processor intensive apps (creative suite 2, now cs3 on the macbook and maya - esp rendering). I'm wouldn't say the ppc "sucks" (I know its old but it was the last ppc laptop made before intel) My G5 desktop (2x 2.3) is at least as fast as the macbook pro on really heavy processing (video, rendering) and some ram and video related stuff (6gb vs 2 gb) - its not so different that it bothers with cs2 but with cs3 the macbook pro is getting more use. I still use the G5 because I have a wacom cintique, and until I get an intel desktop I'll keep using it.
        • drhamad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2splatterboy, you're talking about a brand new Intel system versus a YEARS old system. I'm not sure skidooer is right - after all, the Intel systems are obviously faster - but you aren't right either. The Intel systems *are* faster. They're also newer.

          Somebody made a comment that the G5 was going nowhere fast. This is true. But at the time, it wasn't a poor processor, either. Apple got off the PPC boat at the right time, but the PPC did NOT suck, over the time they used it. Heck, I still use my G4 Mac Mini for a lot of stuff (I use my MacBook for stuff that requires a newer computer & faster speeds, of course).
    • drgmdp, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3funny how for fanbois before intel era powerpc processors were the *****........
  • JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -23/+6Until Apple opens up OSX to OEMs, the Mac platform isnt going anywhere and the only way this is going to happen is when the black turtleneck leaves.
    • oblivinated, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Fanboys are like locusts. They come in swarms and they destroy everything in their path. Digging down every comment that says anything even remotely negative about Jobs or Apple.
      • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4We fanboys like to work like our Macs; as one thing that just works!
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11most Mac users don't want that. probably because Apple's OS has never had any kind of serial number authorization or anti-piracy measures. probably because it really only runs on Apple's own hardware.
      Apple still sells a ton of retail boxed operating systems. *if* Apple modified OS X to run on most any x86 hardware, they would have to start some sort of anti-piracy measures. not that i want to steal the OS, i have all of them on a shelf, but it's kind of the principle. i realize it's just kind of how most things are, but there is something crappy when the second you put in an install DVD you are required to prove you did not steal it. i might not be expressing this right, but after seeing some of my friends have to call MS because they changed a video card and the computer declared them a thief and locked up...... i really enjoy OS installs on a Mac.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They could start by offering MacOS X Server ($500-1000) for generic X86 hardware. That version already has serial numbers, costs a significant sum, and could let them dip their feet in the market while avoiding the issue of having to support regular consumers with your OS on some lousy OEM hardware (since they would be techie users)...
    • gquaglia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The black turtle neck is the reason Apple is doing so well. I think I'd like him to stay a little longer, thank you.
  • clyde2801, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22A far more important question is how well Vista will stand up to malware. Getting bogged down by adware and spyware on a weekly basis was what induced me to switch to Mac. If Vista fixes this, inerta will be on the side of Microsoft, and people will stay. If not, they'll jump ship after they have to reinstall their OS a couple of times.
    • Eddy3oy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+13That simply makes you a typical Mac user in my book. "Getting bogged down by adware and spyware on a weekly basis" simply shows your complete inability to harden your OS and/or your complete ignorance as to why you keep getting infected.
      • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Ya but Mac OS X doesn't need hardening. Not yet anyway.

        The ability to repel viruses should be a core funtion of the OS. Windows just feels incomplete when I have to go buy Norton.
        • Username222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yuck. With some of the specs that I have seen on the performance hit of Norton on a pc, it basically is a virus.
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Inability? Or unwillingness?
      • Drewboy64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree w/ Audacitor. I haven't ever needed to install any virus/adware/spyware software on my mac b/c it's not needed! When I was on Windows a year ago I had to have 4-5 different programs to protect my computer fully so I could keep it safe and on top of that have to do scans every 1-2 weeks to make sure it was clean. The fact of the matter is that the ability to repel viruses should be hardened to the core of your OS instead of having to spend hours on end to do it yourself. It's been a year and 3 months since I owned a PC and an not regretting it. It's refreshing not having to worry about all that junk and worthless crap.
      • sudowrestler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't miss having my Dell, Gateway, IBM grinding away every morning running AVG. And so forth. I don't miss having to compensate for a bad security model.
    • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10Well, it's been a year and there has not been one major threat to Vista.
      I've managed to keep my Windows PCs clean for a number of years now, it baffles me why others can't, unless you're all really stupid.
    • Ndric, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I don't want to know how low your IQ is if you get malware that often
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Vista will soon overtake OSX in usage.
      And do you really think people sick with Vista are going to buy new hardware just to run OSX? I bet they will just install Linux.
      • eighto2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Why not? Chances are they had to buy new hardware for vista anyway.
    • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Step one to avoiding malware on a Windows-based PC: Stop using Internet Explorer (or one of its forks, like Maxthon). When that happens, the threat of Malware pretty much drops to nearly zero.
      • jcheng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That hasn't been true since XP SP2. On Vista, IE is actually the safest choice due to Protected Mode.

        The real "step one" is to learn not to e-mail attachments from people you don't know, or install random programs from sketchy software vendors. No current desktop security model will save you from trojans that you willfully let in the door.
  • deiphobus, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15I agree that Macs are going to soar in the near future, but along with it will come soaring problems. The primary reason why the Windows world is plagued by viruses, spyware, and other types of malware is because of the huge market share. If you're a virus writer, you'd want to create as much damage as possible. With so much hype around Macs (don't get me wrong. I think they are living up to the hype), the dark side of software engineering might venture towards the Mac realm.

    I hope people understand that Macs are considered safer because there aren't much people who would want to invest so much time to wreak havoc in the Mac world, not because OS X is impenetrable.

    I just hope Apple is doing steps to prepare themselves.
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12The primary reason why the Windows world is plagued by viruses, spyware, and other types of malware is because it can be.
      • over9, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5wrong, look at iphone, it's popular and is getting hacked left right and center.
        • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not from over the web...
        • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And those are hardware hacks, not software. BTW, this thread was started about viruses and malware, not hacks. The iPhone hasn't had any viruses or malware appear on it, as far as I know.
        • over9, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I guess both of your didn't hear about the exploit in the iphone that let's people gain access to your private info via web. although this was patched in the latest iphone update. i am sure more will be found.
          • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah that exploit that everyone was so impressed that Apple was able to get it patched in 3 DAYS.
        • Username222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@fanclerks: How is it hardware hacking? That isn't really hardware hacking.
          "Hardware hacking can consist of either making new hardware, or simply modifying old hardware (known as 'modding'). Real hardware hackers perform novel and perhaps dangerous modifications to hardware, to make it suit their needs."
          Also @anonym41414: "Is because it can be" is not an open and shut case. Describing how it is would help more.
          Simply put. OSX isn't attacked with spyware and viruses because nobody is interested. It is fanboy propaganda that the OSX is permanently safe from attacks. It is impossible to fully protect a massive program, especially an operating system. There just tend to be a few well-documented holes that have been recently found, and then there are dozens to hundreds of holes that have not been found.
        • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think it's pretty safe to say that at this point in time there are more Mac users than iPhone users. Ergo, there should be more attacks towards the Mac than the iPhone if user base is the factor in motivating those attacks.
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Someone above said that Vista has no exploits in the wild for over a year. Is nobody interested anymore? Is that the explanation?
    • tao52nyc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15This is the old, hackneyed "security by obscurity" argument, suggesting that if both operating system architectures were placed side-by-side on a level field, both would be equally vulnerable to attack. This is simply not the case, and has been proven not to be the case over and over. UNIX is a tougher architecture.
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Although Apple having a smaller market share does help keep them from being the target of attacks, there are many other reasons too that keep it from being susceptible. One is the fact that programs are normally designed to be run as a non-root account and in a sandboxed user space. A user environment might get compromised, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the OS will also.
      • Username222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OS 10.5 was the first to have a sandbox. And it isn't completely full-proof... But sandboxes are excellent ideas.
    • denmoff77, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2considering that most virus writers are driven by ego, wouldn't it be a great thrill for them to be the first "major" virus written for the the mac? one that shakes the core of all those stuck up apple fan boys?

      -apple fan boy# 239,218
    • afx114, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You are wrong and here's a perfect example illustrating it: Apache enjoys a massive market share in comparison to IIS, but IIS has the vast majority of security issues. This is proof that market share has nothing to do with security.
  • JonParker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24I suppose I kind of fit the definition of fanboy -- been using Macs since the Plus came out in 1986. I love my Macs and hate the PCs that I use at work.
    Nevertheless, I think this is overly optimistic for reasons that one previous poster touched on above. Apple can rule the home market easily, but business is a whole different story. Making inroads into the that market is going to be hard because of Apple's top-to-bottom approach to design.
    While the benefits of that are obvious, a lot of companies who are already in thrall to Microsoft for the OS and office suite sides of their business are not going to be real quick to jump to a company that not only controls the OS, but the hardware. They're stuck paying whatever MS demands to keep their business going, but can save money by negotiating on PCs. Apple's single source model is not going to appear as an attractive alternative.
    I think most business could benefit from switching to Mac, but it's going to be an awfully tough sell.
    • sour, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Good comment. Apple will rule the home market and has a good chance to rule small business market. For the home, you plug a Mac in and it just works. Small businesses will have less dependencies on application support so they can start to switch to Macs. Home and small business will also be first to benefit from web based applications such as Google Docs.

      But is switching large corporations a goal of Apple? Many large companies have signed enterprise agreements with MSFT and have hardware support contracts in place - which they will not switch out anytime soon. Also, if you were a CIO/CEO - what arguments could you bring forth to justify a large scale switch to Mac hardware and OSX? Is running VMWare or Parallels really a way to support legacy applications when you still have to pay for a Windows license anyway?

      Until Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook) is replaced, Windows is not leaving corporate america anytime soon. There will be Macs in the office but as another poster said, they will also have a PC right beside it.

      So:

      Mac @ home, small business, education
      Windows @ large corporations
      • tao52nyc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Is running VMWare or Parallels really a way to support legacy applications when you still have to pay for a Windows license anyway?" Technically, yes. See, the enterprise IT dept. ALREADY PAID for the Windows licenses, presumably XP. So reinstalling builds they already own on a VMWare partition is a slam dunk, and a nice way to both get more mileage from the legacy apps until the next upgrade cycle, and ease the transition from XP to OS X for the users (like a form of "training wheels"). We've been doing this at my office for some time now to great effect.
    • cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Businesses like the single-source vendor approach. IBM was for many years the single-source vendor of choice and that only changed when PC's (and servers to some extent) became commodity hardware.
      The real problem is that Apple doesn't have the business-oriented ecosystem of components that MS has developed over the years. When Apple creates a complete set of solutions for business, then we'll see...

      written on my MBP...
      • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is a good point most large businesses I know use the single source approach. It makes it so they only have to support 2-3 configurations. My company will only buy certain models Dells Latitudes & Precisions. This same approach could very easily be done with Apple iMacs and MacBooks etc. The problem is change is difficult.
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Business isn't really what Apple is shooting for though. They're taking over the home market first, the idea being that once they're in homes, people will say, why can't I use this at work too, and so the switch will happen on its own.
  • mikesown, on 10/10/2007, -15/+13Apple once owned the desktop market with the Apple II. Because they had the whole power struggle, Jobs got kicked out, and the company went down the tubes. Almost instantly after Jobs came back, however, Apple started doing much better. He got Apple out of its financial crisis, and made it one of the biggest tech companies in the world with the iPod. He made macs cool again, hiring Johnathan Ive to create computers with are meticulously clean and well crafted(the iMac is the first device of its size to be made of a single piece of aluminum). Jobs is smart. He knows what people want, and he has the tools to provide it. OSX is slowly but surely gaining marketshare. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had a lot of criticism from the general public, while Apple has had little criticism. When's the last time you heard of someone having trouble on their mac? It may happen, but it happens very infrequently compared to Windows users.

    Most importantly, I think Jobs has the jigzaw puzzle of consumer electronics well thought out in his head. While many vendors have tried and failed to create successful media hubs, Jobs created Front Row, and Apple TV, not to mention the iTunes store. Most of the pieces of this puzzle are in place- Apple has an amazing OS(compared to windows in most regards), well designed computers, and portable devices to carry around your content. From this point, it's just a matter of filling in the small gaps to get a perfect system where marketshare for all devices(including the Mac) will skyrocket. Since Apple makes most of the great software for Mac(iLife,iWork,Logic,Final Cut Studio, etc.), they are forced to develop simple, but necessary applications. For example, take Time Machine. On Windows, products like Retrospect exist for backing up your data. While there are small shareware utilities for OSX that somewhat do this, there has never really been a full featured product that works well for the Mac, so Apple had to make Time Machine. As time goes on, I think Apple will continue to fill this small, but important voids. Apple is an amazing company- but they take time to develop great products. As soon as they complete this jigzaw puzzle, they will have a perfect ecosystem of products, which will dominate industries(computer, music, movies, etc.)
    • Ndric, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Suck Jobs' ***** much?
      • iChuckles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@mikesown
        Apple is forced to make simple programs - ah WTF?
        And there is Retrosect for the Mac and it has been there a while.
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11"When's the last time you heard of someone having trouble on their mac?"

      Perhaps you should visit some of the mac forums out there.
      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's just like comment cards at mcdonalds *****. When's the last time you filled out a comment card because your paper hat wearing server was so accomodating. No one goes to tech forums to talk about how well their computers work, they go to sort out problems.
      • johnnliu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I know mac gamers run window games in emulation, and failing that, they just assume oh well - it wasn't designed to work for Mac in the first place.
        For a windows gamer, if the game doesn't work we get frustrated.
        I used to be a mac user, but the lack of software in the last decade drove me away. I think situation has changed now though - still less software than windows but I reckon all the essential stuff are there.
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You seem to be able to read Job's mind. Undoubtedly he has a plan, but its taken us this long just to realize he even has one, so let's not be jumping to conclusions just yet.
    • nkm82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Johnny Ive was already at Apple when Jobs came back, in fact he designed the TAM.
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is it hard to type with Jobs' ***** in your mouth?
  • TheManiacKY, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9I fear the only way Apple will continue to grow will be with Steve Jobs at the helm. For we have already seen what the company had nearly became history under the control of another.And at the time of that hand off Apple was 40-45% of the market. Lets hope they can figure out how to store Steve in a apple life support system so we can keep his guidance for decades to come.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6well, SJ is respected in a different way now. back then he was seen as reckless and out of control. that's why he was tossed. Apple brought in a lot of suits to make the business decisions so the engineers could do their thing. obviously that was a mistake. Apple has had all these years to get business people in place that actually understand the company and the industry. remember the guy that tossed Steve Jobs had previously been running things at Pepsi. he was brought in for his experience running a zillion dollar company, not because he had any knowledge about the tech industry.
    • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"And at the time of that hand off Apple was 40-45% of the market"
      Urban Legend. At it's peak in the late 80's (AFTER Steve Jobs left) Apple had just shy of 20% of the market.
      • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which market? Apple easily has 20% share in some markets, even today.
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have a tissue.
      I think I see some of Steve's semen in your beard.
  • RyanWilliams, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I just wish gaming on a Mac were a little better. If it weren't for the fact that hardware upgrades can be painful and that the OS itself doesn't support the majority of them (nor the APIs most of them use), I'd most probably find myself completely willing to get one.

    Okay, the fact you'd have to chuck away the beautiful monitor along with the hardware is a bit nasty, but I assume you can get some of that back if you sell it since it's an all-in-one unit -- anyone know how much they go for?

    I have no idea what direction the industry as a whole could go in to resolve this, but it really needs to happen. Booting into XP or Vista just to play a game is a piss-poor solution, and implies you need a legal copy of one of the aforementioned operating systems to do so.

    I understand that a lot of the hip Mac audience has little interest in games, but there's a huge amount of people there who just happen to *love* eye candy, which Apple provides in bucketloads. Bringing them in would be take Macs that much further closer to being what one could consider mainstream.
    • Hattrick, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I love macs for their sleek design and the Unix roots. If I could afford one, I would own a MacBook Pro. Two people have them at my office and I constantly lust after them.

      However, on the desktop side of things I totally agree on the gaming issue. I can Frankenstein my XP PC for many years to keep up with the latest games. Which I am about to do again for the really cool games coming out like Bioshock and ETQW. I see the desktop Mac as a black-box in much the same way the consoles are. While this is an advantage for game developers in that they have a known set of specs to code against, in a relatively short time advances in game engine technology may not be considered Mac compatible. They really need to have someone like EA putting out games in PC/Mac format at the same time.

      Then there is gaming hardware support. Things like a mouse with 10 buttons instead of one, a keyboard with optional gaming modules would be a necessity.

      I suppose Apple could use the Nintendo approach by focusing on niche games and exclusive content but I can't see this motivating gamers to jump on board and shell out for what is essentially a console that is 4-5 times more expensive.
    • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure you can get a $250-$400 upgrade that lets you play Wii or XBOX 360 games.
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Okay, the fact you'd have to chuck away the beautiful monitor along with the hardware is a bit nasty, but I assume you can get some of that back if you sell it since it's an all-in-one unit -- anyone know how much they go for?"

      Take a look on Ebay, Macs retain their value quite well because they're still quite functional even if they're a few years old, unlike PCs without hardware upgrades.
      • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I have yet to understand why that's a good thing.
  • racco, on 10/22/2007, -13/+45it's been said a million times before, and its true (just ask my mum)

    "Once you go mac, you don't go back!"
    • Eddy3oy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+10yup, I'd always recommend a Mac for clueless computer users.

      Anyone that wants their computer to actually do something other than look shiney uses a computer for grown ups.
      • racco, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10clueless users = 80%+ of computer users

        PC = as user friendly as a kick in the balls
        mac = clueless user & clued up user friendly
    • meropealcyone, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Yesterday I used mine to finalize a $1.8M (for my company, not myself, more's the pity) deal. That ***** grown-up enough for you?
      • Eddy3oy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hmm, let me guess...you sent an email? or did you type out a letter all by yourself? maybe even print out a contract for someone to sign? WOW!

        ***** n00b
    • eighto2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Maybe its time i grow up then, bend over and get visted like grown ups do...
      • Eddy3oy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah, cos Vista's the only other operating system on the planet isn't it?!?!
    • commnode, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I have one for you. I started working on setting up my mother's shiny new mac. Started up a few programs, ran ls in the shell and - crashed. Had to yank the battery. Did it three times before I was finally all done. Slick and sleek? yes. Uncrashable? no.

      Didn't hook me.
    • captainchris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1oh yeah, well and al gore uses macs, and al gore knows his *****. so there.
  • Chris1280, on 10/10/2007, -16/+10Seriously I want a mac when they make it more like a pc, as in I can play all my games and be able to change my computer personally and get it fixed locally.
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Oh, you mean like now? Most of their lineup is upgradeable in one way or another. And the playing games is only an issue depending on what you play, so you can use VMWare Fusion or Boot Camp into Windows. And last I checked, any computer repair place will do Macs also. You don't have to go to an Apple Store to have them fix it.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So you want a Mac Pro then?
  • uselessexpert, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27I find myself ONLY recommending Macs right now, eventhough I have two desktops running XP and laptop (which I'm on right now) running Vista (which is not that bad),
    • BAFrayd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And your recommendations come with what expertise?
      • nkm82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0He knows Windows pretty well, OSX just can't be so bad...
  • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4They look pretty, people with loads of extra cash will gobble them up for their aesthetic qualities alone. That and windows, for the most part, blows (except the fact that it plays every game out there, but hopefully that will change). And lower the ***** price, Jobs, FFS. Make them in-line with what a non-mac PC costs and you'll see market share go through the roof. Make your money on software like everyone else. Sheesh. That turtleneck must be cutting off the blood supply to his brain.
    • dondara, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Man, you guys are a bunch of cheap bastards. Does anybody complain that a BMW costs more? It's just a car, you drive it and have to put gas in it. A computer just surfs, sends email and maybe does some other trivial tasks. But I am willing to spend more for something looks better and works more intuitively. I don't care if I have to pay maybe 2 or 3 hundred more to run OSX. It's worth it to not have to see all self-promotion ***** on a MS OS. And the gaming thing ...WTF, grow up. Games are for children, drinking and chasing women are all you should be doing ...oh, right this DIgg.
      • over9, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4No, a BMW performs better, it's faster in a straight line and a track. The same can't be said of Macs when even lower priced PCs can outperform a mac.
        • zongamin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9So you've never used a mac then?
        • chevyorange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7BMW's aren't always faster on a track or straight line... there are plenty of cheaper cars that will blow the doors off most of them.

          I'd rather have the BMW, that clunk when the door closes straight and tight... well worth it.

          Like my PowerMac.
  • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27oh yes and this is the year of Linux. like last year. and the year before.
  • omniatlas, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Apple has like ZERO share in China. Perhaps Stevie has something up his sleeve but its not really smart to ignore a population of a billion.
    • warnergt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Microsoft has a 100% share in this market where their Windows OS sells for $3 (to those who will actually pay for it). Who wants share in that market?
      • over9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7i thought apple made their money selling proprietary hardware with their OS. and I don't see the chinese being easily able to pirate apple's hardware.
        • capecodcarl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Where do you think Apple computers are assembled!? The Chinese already have the technology they need to easily duplicate Macs if they wanted to. Hell, they do it with Cisco hardware too.
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Seriously. Are we talking about the same Chinese here? They could duplicate you and your entire family if they felt like it.
      • commnode, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I do! I think you mean aside from $3 * say 1/3 of 1 billion = 1 billion dollars. On top of that you establish legacy with one of the most powerful and up and coming economies in the world (ignoring finer economic debates for now)

        MSFT may have a slightly evil and poorly designed software, but they aren't stupid business men.
        • Icebird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4um, maybe it's $1 billion, but that doesn't go to Apple. It goes to the pirates who sell copies on the street.
    • captainchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the apqle (tm) irnac (tm) sells quite well in china
  • jellomizer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1025% market share is probably the upper limit of Mac Use. Anything above that I would be scared... As I type on my MacBook Pro. The reason for its low market share isn't as much the price prices for comparable systems are competitive but you have more options with the other guys so you can choose and decide what you want with other PC's thus getting a more powerful system for _you_ for less price. (Say I don't need the video camera, gigabit ethernet, firewire 800 but I do need a faster processor, or mo re memory and to save a bit more I don't need a small form-factor metal case Ill go with cheap plastic. Macs are not more expensive then PCs but a PC can be configured to cost less then a Mac. Also there is the factor on what makes apple so great could still hurt it from gaining greater market share. The fact the OS and Hardware is tightly integrated. With PC's if you find that Dell Sucks and you find Lenovo is better then you go to lenovo without having to upgrade all your software. Luckily now with most services and programs being web based this is less of an issue today. But if you go with a mac and get software for it you are kinda stuck on it. Unless you are willing to buy new software later on... There has been a drop in Mac Quality my Powerbook was a solid notebook while my newer MacBook Pro while still built better then any other competitors laptop seems a bit cheaper to me more plastic, a little more flimsy.
    • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It seems "more plastic"? It's still made of metal, at least mine is. You don't have either the white or the black laptop, do you?
    • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Macs are not more expensive then PCs but a PC can be configured to cost less then a Mac."

      I'm sensing contradictory statements, Captain.
      • DCstewieG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think he means that for comparable specs they are about the same price. But if you need a cheap ass box, you can't get a Mac.
    • WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The fact is, Macs are ridiculously expensive compared to a PC. A Dell Inspiron 1520 ($1100) configured to the exact same specs as a MacBook Pro ($2500) leaves a HUGE difference in price. Even the exclusivity of the Mac OS and a pretty design can't be enough to make people buy these things.
  • sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -7/+39buried as inaccurate.

    "triple cores"? and you call yourself a member of the tech industry? lame.

    show me a mac with a "triple core" processor (or a PC for that matter).
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"Apple rolls out systems featuring the latest dual cores, triple cores, quad cores and, well, you get the idea, smartly and with relative speed." He is being a little loose here... not being literal.
    • ryanwarnersteel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3only triple cores I know of are those in the 360
    • xed122333, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can't wait for the 7-core systems to come out. Sony already did it with the PS3, why not Apple?
      • nkm82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Because Apple doesn't make $600 toasters.
  • Udog, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I'll plan on getting a MacBook next summer when I need to buy a laptop. However, I highly suspect that by that time (or shortly after) Macs will have become popular enough that protection will be necessary. It's only a matter of time before someone malicious realizes the potential of a market whose machines do not have protection, and whose users often buy the Mac so 'they don't have to worry about that stuff'.

    Writing viruses may not be as easy for the Mac, but when someone finally does, it will make a killing.
  • Ndric, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Apple is kept afloat by the fanboys that buy every version of their product. That's why their market never really expands.

    • Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7How does one become a "fanboy"?
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If being kept "afloat" means being worth more than Sony and Nintendo combined, then I guess you are right. Amazing what fanboys can accomplish, isn't it.
  • stephenward, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I think the single most important thing Apple did was to open retail stores. This has been responsible for most of the success over the last few years. Your average customer doesn't know or care about Intel v PowerPC. But in the stores they can get their hands on the hardware, try it, talk to people and get drawn in by the whole experience. It worked for me!

    But I think Apple needs to get onto the corporate desktop more to have a serious challenge at big market share.
    • RyotGear, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3If thats all I took for you to buy a computer, stay away from Car Dealerships.
    • borg357, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have to totaly agree with stephenward! Most people just asume that Macs are not serious, or that it's just a toy, or just an MP3 company, ect, ect.. But, once they come into the store, get there hands on a new computer, and are able to play around with it.. it starts to change your idea about Apple.

      The funny thing is.. the Mac stores around me are all packed with people every singe time I've been in them.. I'll bet other stores in the malls which they had that kind of trafic generated too them.
  • TuneRaider, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I've been a Mac fan since my first computer (a Centris 610), but I'm still burying this as, at best, a non-story (and at worst, a time-wasting, not-particularly-compelling opinion piece).
    • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Welcome to Digg! Ever been here before? All we do is talk about non-stories -- Ron Paul, cute little sketches of Mario, the beliefs that atheists don't have... If you're hanging around here, your time isn't very valuable in the first place.
  • nga911, on 10/10/2007, -6/+612% in the US is realistic but i don't think the rest of the world , some people don't even know what a "mac" is !
    • dromni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am not so sure. I live in Brazil and in the last four years or so the number of mac owners in my circle of friends raised from "zero" to "many".
  • Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7My Mac Pro is definitely "grown-up".
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ahh - you bought *that* peripheral.
      Don't worry - I won't tell anybody.
  • TheHamBeast, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14This is crazy. Why aren't Macs embraced now? Probably because the actual utility they provide is not inline with their cost. If you're a technical layman, like this article describes, what are you possibly going to do with your $1200+ Mac? Send email? Shop? Listen to music? Hey, how about buy a PC that does all that stuff for less than half the price. Buying a Mac is like buying a Ferrari that can only be driven up down your driveway.
    • over9, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4I know you are going to get dugg down so I dugg you up cos what you say is the truth.
    • TheRealM3D, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8The difference is that the average computer user that only sends emails, shops and listens to music is the same person that allows their computers to become infested with malware and doesn't understand what all of those little error messages mean when their system starts having problems. Macs work so seemlessly and there are so few problems that the average user can have a much better experience doing their shopping, emailing and listening to music.
      • over9, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1The extra mark up on the mac isn't worth it.
      • Verugan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3haha yeah cause Macs never break or get error messages....
        • nkm82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Of course they do, Macs run windows now, don't you remember?
    • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Apparently you missed the fact that what you just described is exactly what Apple markets their computers as being able to do. iLife '08 is still better than everything else, hell its better than iLife '06 (and not because Jobs told me so).
      • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I know what you mean. I'm in the PC market, and every day I wake up and chide myself for not running iLife. My day has yet to feel complete because of it.
  • over9, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8People will look back on this article in 12 years time when Macs are virtually extinct and have a huge laugh.
    • swimtwobirds, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8mmm. a date that will coincide with your 21st birthday bash.
    • knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8over9, you've posted in this topic 14 times so far to complain about Apple in the most irrelevant, inaccurate, and stupidest ways possible. Did Apple kill your parents, or are you really that green with jealousy?
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Don't worry. over9 will have to stop posting soon today because his mom just made his lunch and she wants to use their AOL account
  • igknighted, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8They will always be a niche until they decide whether they are a hardware company or a software company. I refuse to buy Apple hardware because I like to upgrade my PC part by part, as I have the money. If I could build my own PC and run OSX on it, I would consider it as an option. But until I can do that, OSX is merely a curiosity, and I will continue to happily run Linux.
    • JonLatane, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Saying PCs will outsell the Mac because users want to be able to perform maintenance is like saying Jeeps will outsell Toyotas and Hondas (I don't know if you've ever performed maintenance/upgrades on a car, but rest assured, Jeeps are MUCH easier to work on and fix). You can still easily upgrade the RAM in all Macs, which provides a greater speed/price upgrade than video card, processor, or anything else really.

      Face it. YOU'RE the niche.
      • sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and you're a moron. RAM upgrading is for newbies; he's talking about doing real upgrades, not kid stuff.
    • strax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The closed nature of the mac is part of what drives a lot of their sales. Many people "afraid" of a computer like the mac's simplicity and lack of options. Makes it easier to pick what they want. There are strong arguments for and against this approach, but so far it is working well for Apple.
    • lornefs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That will never happen because Apple could never handle the burden Microsoft has to handle when it supports over 2 million devices.
      Most of the instability that comes with windows is in bad device drivers.
  • JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+912% by 2012 is ridiculous, unless Apple seriously starts dropping their prices. As a Mac fan, I constantly try to get my buddies to pick up a Mac whenever they're in the need for a replacement computer. We go down to the Apple store, I show them around, point out what they actually need (as opposed to don't), and the price-to-performance always ends up being the issue. That, and the insane cost of out-of-warranty repairs (logic board, screen, etc). I hang out with mostly IT people and union painters, who all make decent money, so it's not like they're broke and want the cheapest thing possible. Its just that they're intelligent, and notice that you can get a PC with a faster (Intel) processor, more RAM, and a bigger LCD for the same price as an iMac. There's no argument for that.

    Apple will always be able to draw in the people who buy stuff based on looks where money is no object, and don't mind form over function. Unfortunately, I doubt that will be 12% of all people by 2012. Speaking of form-over-function, where's my right-drag? Leopard beta sure doesn't have it. . .

    As for the article, read the top Digg comment. that pretty much sums up the flightiness of the author.
    • capecodcarl, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Go price out a business class laptop compared to a MacBook Pro and you'll find Apple is very competitive with prices. Your problem is that they're not interesting in competing on the low end market which is why their cheapest box is $600 in a market where PCs are going for half that much with the same specs. On the upper end though, a MacBook Pro ($2499) actually came out to be cheaper than a similar Dell Precision M4300 laptop I priced out ($2655) with the same specs (2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB hard drive, 802.11n wireless, 15.4" display, bluetooth, etc.
      • archer75, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4That's because you pricing out a Dell precision. You don't need to price out a "business" laptop. A laptop is a laptop. Go to their home store, price one out, and then apply a coupon code. Not you have something significantly cheaper with the same amount of power.
        • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1This is common for Mactards to do!
          Do the price out again, actually DO it on their sites ALL THE WAY!
          See that the Dell actually has a NVIDIA QUADRO FX with 512(256)Turbo RAM
          See that the MACBOOK PRO only has the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
          Yes the Quads are much more expensive!!!!

          Also You chose the APPLE with the 160GB at 5400 RPM .. try for the 7200 now the Apple is up to $2,649.00

          So $2,649.00 Apple with lesser Video card compared to Dell at $2655 with way more expensive video card!

          How you like them APPLES now?!?!
      • MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I *knew* someone was going to come on and try to compare Apple with Dell. Do Apple customers not realize that not everyone buys a Dell? Do they forget there is a market for home-built PCs? It's like they've lived in "I buy what they build" land so long that they've forgotten that there are some people who know what goes on inside the computer case.
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Really? Home-built laptops?
          • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes. Bare-bones laptops are slowly but steadily becoming increasingly popular.
      • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is not so much with the price by comparison, in my opinion, but the price of entry and limited configurability. One of the things I think of as a requirement is a 15" screen, but the Macbook Pro is about $500 over what I want to spend. Apple does not let you downgrade the hardware at all. 120GB is far more storage than I'd need to carry around with me, 2.2GHz is faster than what I'd need in a laptop, and an 8600M GT is several times more powerful than what I need in a laptop. Most all the other manufactures out there would allow me to change some options and knock the price of that down to around $1500. The Macbook screen is just too small for me to use it every day. I want to get a new laptop, and there is no way I'm going to get a smaller screen than what I'm already using. I would LOVE to have my next laptop be Apple, but not enough for me to fork out another $500.
  • paerez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I thought it was the year of the linux desktop ?
  • kelchm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Did you guys actually read this article? The writer is a moron.
    • CeeAyy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3and someone who loved windows for years... hmmm. NOW he's a moron.
  • MBHoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I agree, they have a brilliant chance, and I wish them all the best.

    But they're going to need to cut prices.
  • danomagnum, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2hmmm... the mac is doing it's best when bush is taking over the country.... coincidence? I think not!
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14The price of the new imacs and the fresh design has me considering buying a Mac for the first time.
    • L0g1X, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1But for us existing Mac users, we now have to buy everything new again to have it match. My iPod video matches my glossy white iMac. But now if I want to upgrade my iMac, I have to get a new iPod NANO with the silver or black design. My iPhone matches the new iMac though.... then again my AirPort doesn't. Oh screw this style matching! I'll just wait till they have everything in black & silver. But by that time they'll probably have a new style out.
  • xenzo, on 10/22/2007, -11/+4Perhaps Apple could sell more Macs if they thought about reducing their pathetically high markup on the cost of buying a new Mac. Naturally, all the Apple fanboys will think iWorks 08 is the business.. but it really isn't. In my opinion Windows Vista is superior to OS X in terms of compatibility, software support, price and growingly, security - where Windows Vista is becoming a competitor to OS X.

    When the average person buys a computer, they buy it as an upgrade, they have legacy applications that they want to use, an upgrade to another Windows machine enables this, and upgrade to a Mac does not.

    Microsoft Office is superior software in every way to every office suite available, and is the most functional and intuitive suite of office tools available for home and business users alike.

    Naturally, I will get buried for this comment, but the fact is, Apple will never surpass Microsoft in terms of OS market share, they are operating outside the Microsoft imposed ecosystem.
    • PA42, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1"Windows Vista is superior to OS X in terms of compatibility, software support, price and growingly, security - where Windows Vista is becoming a competitor to OS X." Do you believe this??!?!?!??? Price: Vista is a fortune compared to OSX. Compatibility Try plugging in a printer or external harddrive into a mac and seeing how much quicker it works. Software Support: A mac comes with all the supported software you need and you can boot in boot camp or parallells to get the rest, security? you must be joking, I don't even have anti virus software on my mac, meanwhile my Lenovo PC has Norton and still gets viruses. Use a mac for a year and then comment.

      Although I do run MS Office in parallells, so you have a point there.
      • chrismag1979, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1You are stupid. First no one give a damn about Mac, just look at the market share. The only great programmer/hacker i could think of now on Mac system is Hackintosh! I know he could make a virus in a day or two but he does not want to screw Mac.

        And fact, there are more Vista user right now than OSX combined Mac/Macintel. And it only took microsoft 6-8 months to achieve that.
        • gordonf238, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2No one gives a damn about Mac because most home and business users don't know any better.

          The only reason why there are more Vista users than OSX is because of new PC sales. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE buys the retail version of Vista to upgrade their existing PC. All Vista sales are strictly as part of new PC purchases.

          Now shush.
          • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually I just bought it along with 2 gigs of ram for grand total of 3.
    • tao52nyc,