Why Apple Is So Sticky 595
Hugh Pickens writes "'Sticky,' in the social sciences and particularly economics, describes a situation in which a variable is resistant to change. For websites or products it usually means that visitors or customers keep coming back for more. Now Fortune Magazine reports on an analysis by Deutsche Bank's Chris Whitmore on what makes the (iTunes-based) iPhone-iPod-iPad platform so sticky and why it's going to get harder, not easier, for Apple users to switch, no matter what Google and the rest of Apple's competitors have up their sleeves. Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.' Apple has an installed base today of about 150 million iTunes-dependent devices that could grow to more than 200 million by the end of 2011. Whitmore comes up with a cumulative investment in those devices of about $15 billion today, growing to $25 billion by the end of next year. 'This averages to ~$100 of content for each installed device,' Whitmore writes, 'suggesting switching costs are relatively high (not to mention the time required to port). When Apple's best-in-class user experience is combined with these growing switching costs, the resulting customer loyalty is unparalleled.'"
The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
News for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're the ones moving forward and being creative in the computer field with regards to consumer computers while everybody else is just following their lead? Microsoft is creating vaporware tablets to compete with the iPad. Android and the idea around it came out a year after and probably because of the iPhone and the design of its OS. HP is scavenging Palm for their own Apple inspired tablet rather than going with Windows. Things are changing as people are getting used to owning smart phones and being online just about anywhere they are located. This wasn't a feature advancement as my phone years before the iPhone could also (technically) go online, but the iPhone OS was the one that made it actually work like a browser and easy to do for the general public.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The question is (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with your concerns about how apple treats customers, however it's hard to deny that without apple we would not have all these nice shiny toys. Apple appears to be the only company capable of creating a product with a specific set of goals in mind and make those parts just work.
Apple products are not without their flaws, but they generally don't feel like they just slapped together some random hardware components and called it a day. Most other companies products feel just like that.
I still stay away from buying apple because I hate their lockdown policies, but I am sad to say that apparently they are the only company capable of actually designing and making a proper product. Something that has a specific set of design goals and accomplishes exactly those - nothing more, nothing less.
It just proves today's Apple customers are cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been saying for a while that the iPhone is no longer a "premium" brand. High school kids have them. If $100 is "relatively high", then those iPhone customers are not what Apple makes them out to be, especially when amortized over the cost of a 3-year phone plan - $100 is less than $3 a month. Less than $0.10 a day. How much cheaper can you get? Are iPhone customers reduced to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in the Apple section, but thanks for playing.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't hear, Apple's market capitalization recently surpassed that of Microsoft. That means if you add up all the Apple stock out there, it's worth a total of 234 billion dollars as of last Friday; i.e. if you happened to have a quarter of a trillion dollars just lying around, you could in theory buy the whole company*. Microsoft, meanwhile, is worth 226 billion dollars. True, the stock market is driven as much by fear and greed as any rational forces, and Microsoft still hauled in more money, but as of Friday, the various institutions and individuals out there felt that as a company Apple Computer was worth more than Microsoft. Think about that for a second. Ten years ago, Microsoft was the unstoppable Borg, ruthlessly destroying or assimilating all who opposed them. Now there's a new Borg, and their cube is stylish and made of shiny white lucite and brushed aluminum, and they have millions and millions of brainwashed drones plugged into their machines. It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era.
The reason for the shift is pretty obvious. Apple has focused on the next generation of consumer electronics, first with the iPod, now with the iPhone, and next (maybe) with the iPad. They realized that the OS wars were done, and focused on the next big fight. A while ago, Jobs declared Apple's mission was to be 'the new Sony', i.e. to own personal electronics the way Sony did in the 80s and 90s. They've done it. Microsoft never really got this.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you didn't hear, Apple's market capitalization recently surpassed that of Microsoft."
I see. It's because Slashdot has often posted stories about Microsoft's highly regarded market capitalization in the past.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
He said health care. That particular industry is not only not a dead end, it just received the biggest boost in completely reality-divorced profitability in American history. It doesn't even matter what aspect of health care: insurance, equipment manufacturer, pharmaceuticals, even just a hospital administration and management company; they were all just a few short months ago handed an enormous blank check.
What it lacks on Apple is the same thing their competitors in the electronics market lack: sex appeal. Apple has sex appeal, Apple products have sex appeal (doubt it? if you want to get laid, should you carry an iPod, or a Zen? sex appeal), Dell does not.
Re:The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, almost all stocks in profitable companies paid dividends. Those that didn't were special cases facing certain market changes that led them to reinvest that profit into the company for a short time. Then things changed and people got the idea that the best way to make money was to gamble on the future price of the stocks of a company and not worry about getting a share of the profits.
Many of the problems in current corporate governance are a result of the fact that the owners of most companies (the stockholders) no longer want a share of the profits. Instead of stockholders expecting to make money from the profits of the company they invest in, they expect to make money by selling their stake in the company to somebody else for more than they paid for it. That means that most stockholders are investing in a ponzi scheme. For example, if next week the overwhelming majority of people decide that Apple has no value and they continue to believe that to be true for the indefinite future to such a degree that current Apple share holders are unable to sell their stock, it will take somewhere close to 30 years for Apple share holders to get their money back (and actually probably much longer since Apple has never issued a dividend). On the other hand, if the same situation were to occur to the company the original poster mentioned, it would take a much shorter time for the stock holders to get their money back (especially considering that historically most major companies in the health care fields, do issue dividends).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
iPod has only plateaued because the iPhone had iPod built in. The mobile phone market is huge, way bigger than the PC market. And so far Apple only has a small market share. There's plenty of room for growth. And even if/when they are market leader, that doesn't mean growth stops. Remember Microsoft kept it's PC OS sales growing for 25-30 years.
And don't forget the iPad. Just like the iPod and iPhone before it, many people on slashdot dismiss it. But I keep hearing people try the iPad and love it and want o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft got it. They've had tablets and phones and all sorts of cool electronics, even years before the competition.
Outside of the Xbox, which "cool electronics" are you referring to? And MS has never had any tablets or phones (well, now they have the Kin), they've only had tablet and phone operating systems.
And their best success, the XBOX, lost money hand over fist for years.
You worded that as though MS has finally made a profit on the Xbox. They're still billions in the hole on that one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era." Call me when osx breaks 20%. Or whe pad w/e usage is more important than pc usage.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended. MS is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day, and the market is reflecting that. Apple's market cap exceeding MS's is a milestone on this road. To focus on Mac OS X market share vs Windows 7 market share is focusing on where the puck was, and not where it's going.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Every time we wave our pitchforks Slashdot serves a metric buttload of ads.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Arseload?
Love/hate relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
So Slashdot historically loves Apple. Reason is twofold:
1) Apple is a historic underdog and Slashdot likes underdogs. They were the small guys fighting the evil that is MS, and Slashdot REALLY hates MS. As such they like Apple, or at least what Apple was.
2) Apple provides an easy to use alternative to Windows with some UNIX underpinnings. While many are loathe to admit it, Linux is a PITA for many desktop uses. Some of the people who use(d) it do so out of anti-MS zealotry and/or a UNIX superiority complex. Well, Apple offers an OS you can pretend is UNIX (even though that is just a minor foundation) that is easy to use and not MS. So, it is the sort of thing many /.ers like.
However, Apple is, and nearly always has been, a company far more controlling than MS. They want to dictate everything about your computer usage. They want you to have to buy hardware from them, in the configurations they specify only. They want you to use only their OS. They want to control where you get your applications and media, they want to tell you when to upgrade, etc.
This is, of course, counter to what Slashdot likes. However it was something that wasn't that apparent, nor that onerous back when Apple was the little guy. However as Apple has grown, it has become more and more obvious that their vision of the future of technology is one where they run everything.
So because of these two things, you see a lot of Apple stories, and a lot of stories on their lock in strategies. Don't expect it to change any time soon as Apple isn't likely going anywhere and the combination of love/hate will continue here.
Re:Love/hate relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that whole certified UNIX-thing is probably because of the 'minor' foundation. OS X IS UNIX.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My brother has a Mac, and I'm having the hardest time getting the hang of it: why do windows lose focus when I move the mouse
They don't.
And *I* say it sounds like your brother installed Linux on his Mac. The behavior you're describing is not that of standard Mac OS X.
he does run MacOS X 10.x, and
they do. every time i, or my nephew, shove the mouse out of the way, i get a bunch of tiled windows of all running apps, all inactive. given the huge taskbar that already takes up a bunch of screen estate, i don't grok what that's good for, except forcing me to pay attention to the mouse at all times (he's got a very small d ...esk).
on Windows, when I right-click on a network icon, I get the network setup. that's kinda more intuitive: it's just there.
OMG News flash!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This just in: "Vendor lock-in makes it harder to switch to a competitor's products!"
Wow!!!! Story at 10!!!
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Another question is why did some bozo have to come up with "sticky" for this shit. There's no need for a new word -- it's DRM, maniacal top-down content control and savage vendor lock-in all rolled into one.
But sticky sure sounds more like fuzzy kittens.
There are a few problems with your theory. 1. All of the music Apple sells is DRM free and any DRM'ed songs that anyone still has which they could not upgrade can be burned to CD and re-ripped. 2. Even if iPhone apps were DRM-free, you would not be able to run then on non-apple device anyway.
Apps whether they be free or paid are the main part of the stickiness of the iPhone OS platform. Even ignoring the replacement costs, some apps would be irreplaceable on other platforms like Android because of the unique properties of the iPhone OS (multi-touch) and because many third party developers have not bothered with Android because of how poorly Google treats commercial software devs.
The Android store is biased in favour of free apps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding Music - you're right on the money. When I dumped Apple, it was a pain to move the DRM'd music across, so I either nuked it and re-bought or just didn't worry about it (lots of 'one hit wonder' crap, really - didn't care if I lost it).
Regarding Apps - I think they are a LOT less sticky than people want to believe. Most people in my office have dropped iPhones for various other devices, and didn't give the sunk costs a second thought. You'd have to be poorly off to think that $30 or $50 worth of iPh
Re:The question is (Score:4, Interesting)
No, Apple re-brands a bunch of existing technology and sells it.
They don't just re-brand it. They steal it, polish it up, and releases it in a stream-lined and user-friendly product with all the bugs worked out. And as we all know, copying ideas and improving on them is Good(tm). And some of Apple's ideas are original, like multi-touch.
I believe if Virgin decided to start selling computers it would quite easily eat in to the Apple market-share.
Marketing isn't everything. Having the right idea, the right people and the right corporate culture at the right time and place counts for a lot.
Microsoft could have made Windows as user-friendly as Mac a long time ago, with all their money and their foothold on the market, but yet they fail in that department again and again.
music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to post pretty much the same thing. The other problem with apps, and often movies, is that they become 'obsolete' quite quickly to some degree. Apps in particular will have a new version released requiring an update fee to be 'current', presenting a good incentive to switch - and may well require such an update for the new version of an OS.
Movies less so, but I know that I rarely rewatch films more than a few times unless they're particularly good ones. This is reflected by the 75%+ discounti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if someone buys $100 worth of android or blackberry apps then, surprise surprise, they can only use them on whichever device they purchased them for and are locked in.
The only way to be free and not locked in is for the PUBLISHERS to allow people to download versions of their apps/media for any platform they
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Come on, give me a break. Give Randall *something* to do; don't prove all of his work for him!
What "sticky" really means (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like, at least in Apple's case, "sticky" is just another word for "vendor lockin"
Re:What "sticky" really means (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "lock in" apparently has had its definition changed much as "brick" has already.
How in the world is anyone "locked in" to an iPod?
Re:What "sticky" really means (Score:5, Informative)
Had you bothered to read the OP or the article, you would have some idea how.
But as to why the parent got modded up, it's because "vendor lock-in" is a well-known phenomenon in the field of economics and it is exactly what the author is describing when using the word "sticky."
Stickiness does not mean what he's using it to mean. Stickiness is a measure of inertia or lag between an event and the resulting inevitable reaction in the affected group. Vendor lock-in is what happens when businesses exert market-power to prevent "churn" such as when they artificially raise the cost of switching away from their products and services.
Apple has done this in myriad ways, not the least of which include their selection of compatible file-formats, DRM and their developer agreement which prohibits the use of cross-platform development tools, together keeping competitors from offering attractive full-featured media-players and from having the same apps in their app stores.
Vendor lock-in is the appropriate description for the phenomenon at issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock_in [wikipedia.org]
Re:What "sticky" really means (Score:4, Funny)
So what's new? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.'
Wow, it's almost like Windows where the thousands of dollars worth of Windows software I own are the only thing keeping me stuck to having a Windows PC in the house.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a valid point.
Having said that though, current generation Macs can run almost all Windows productivity software and older games at near native speed with parallels or vmware. Alternatively you can actually boot into Windows to run everything at native speeds via bootcamp.
I don't expect to see either the ability to run a virtual iPhone or have the option to boot up as an iPhone on any other phone anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
older games at near native speed with parallels or vmware.
Have you even used this software? It's not "native speed." I spend quite a deal of time in vmware fusion and I can tell you that its no where near native speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that! (Score:2)
Build a product that is easy to use, reliable, has easy access to all the content most average people want, and is pretty to boot... and people keep buying it! It isn't rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine isn't that reliable. I've had to have SOME part replaced every year I've owned a MBP. Some of the replacement parts would have cost a shit load of money ($1500 for a logic board replacement), but luckily I bought the extended warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
The first iBook I bought went back for a new Logic board. This 12.1" powerbook has had 1 new battery about 3 years ago, but it's now over 6 years old. 1 Battery, 4 power supplies, but the power supplies are my fault. (I kept knocking them off a high table onto a ceramic tile floor at least twice a day. Only so many times you can do that).
The MacBook I had is now 3 years old and still being used by a friend of mine with no problems other than a new battery she got. (18 - 24 months is the life of any bat
To each their own... (Score:4, Funny)
For websites or products it usually means that visitors or customers keep coming back for more.
For some websites on the Internet, "sticky" has a completely different meaning. :-)
And by "some" I mean "most", and by "websites" I mean "porn". To quote Dr. Cox on Scrubs, "If you shutdown all the porn sites on the Internet, there would only be one site left and it would be called 'Bring back the porn.'"
Value calculation is skewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's talk about applications only. Sure the average user may have purchased $100 worth of software, but how much of it do they actually use day to day? I think, just like a computer platform, that the cost of switching is lower than it would seem because most software does not need to be replaced, so the cost is lower than it would seem from simply examining purchase prices for everything you own.
Now throw in media... songs are pretty much sold DRM free these days, so there is no cost to migrate media. Video is tricker since through iTunes it is wrapped in DRM. But I wonder apart from children's video, how much video purchased online is really there to be watched again and again - I buy a lot of video online but after I watch it, I generally don't watch it more than once. I "buy" it knowing full well it's really more like a rental, and if I really like a video I'll buy it on physical media that I can load out or keep as long as I want.
There is something to the argument they make, I just don't think it's as strong on the value side as they make it out to be.
Re:Value calculation is skewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Its more psychological. People are extremely adverse to loss, even if that loss isn't really that much. A good example is the stock market and how quickly people panic the moment there is any kind of drop, even though that loss was entirely on paper and in the larger picture their stock is still worth more than it was when they bought it.
Just the thought of losing something that they paid money for, even though they never watch it or use it is a big barrier. They have to mentally disconnect themselves from any perceived value the item holds before they can get rid of it. Some people like horders aren't able to do even that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is people get into the habit of buying their music on iTunes. Like they had the habit of buying it in the record store or a big-box like Best Buy or Wal-Mart before it. Habits are just hard to break. There seem to be enough people who like iTunes enough to keep going back.
I prefer getting a physcial CD from the record store or mostly Amazon now. Seems iTunes is having such an effect on the market, coupled probably with piracy and less music interest, that most record shops are cutting back on CDs
Re:Value calculation is skewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Except music from iTunes at this point doesn't contribute to Apple lock-in. There's no DRM on them, and AAC is supported by most major hardware vendors at this point.
Videos and Apps, but not music. And it's not like there isn't a problem going the other way if someone wants to move from Android or Windows Mobile or Palm to iPhone if they've got an investment in apps on that platform.
Besides, if someone ships a seriously compelling alternative to your current platform of choice, is $100 in content really going to stop you from switching, considering we're talking about several hundred dollar cell phones or tablets you replace every couple years.
You miss much of the value, so do they. (Score:2)
Speaking as an iPhone user that has considered Android and as a longtime Linux user that has considered Windows/MacOS, a big part of the value is in the assemblage of applications/widgets/etc. that the user has collected.
This is not the same thing as a "learning curve," and it is not about the value of the applications/apps. It's a matter of the investment of time and configuration required to "transition" to another platform and duplicate the work environment that you've constructed. For example, on the iP
The same can be said for Microsoft's domination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The same can be said for Microsoft's domination (Score:4, Informative)
Buy an ipod and unless you are a tech guy you are locked into itunes. If you use itunes for more than transfering shit and buy their stuff you are locked into their DRM (they still have drm for movies i believe). One poster a minute ago suggested that itunes on windows was problematic, to have it work properly you should use a mac. Also it does things like install quicktime and safari though patches (something else a non tech geek wouldnt notice)
If you buy a mac to make itunes run properly you've screwed yourself even more. Every weird ass firewire accessory you get will be worthless if you ever want to go back to windows. Mac wireless routers and mac sans. You've switched totally over to mac. To leave them you need to replace everything you have software and hardware. (An exaggeration in some areas but certainly worse than going pc->mac). Windows crap at least attempts to follow standards (even counting ie6). Apple makes up its own shit so that only apples can use it and so that appler's can't switch away.
it's the sugar, obviously (Score:3, Funny)
Why is an apple sticky? when you cut an apple and hold it with your bare hands, the juice will make your hand sticky, no question about it, that's what hand washing is for.
Oh, you are talking about the company? Same reason applies.
--
As for the truth of the statement, as much as for some people it is absolutely 'sticky', for others it's too sweet - sugary and unpleasant. I like my computers the way I like my coffee - no sugar. I can't stand Apple's products at all, it's a personal internal thing, when I see all of the Apple computers in all these movies, and all these 'creative' people with the logos all over the place - makes me cringe. You can't make me use an Apple product if you pay me.
Media porting (Score:2, Interesting)
This is an example of why we need media portability laws, just like laws were passed to allow you to port your cell number from one carrier to the other. Laws need me be made allowing media, software, music, books to be portable between platforms.
This is also another reason i believe music, movies, and likely now book should be sold with serialized licenses included. The license gives you access to the exact same content, no matter what medium or method it is distributed. You goto bestbuy, buy a physical CD
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.
Most of the apps in the App stores are priced at almost rental levels - with the benefit of having no time limit. If you can't afford a few dollars for a productive or utilitarian app, or even a few dollars for a few weeks of gaming fun before you're bored of the game, then owning a smartphone is probably not for you.
Most people don't buy hundreds of random useless apps, they buy things that they feel are worthwhile. And since most people don't change their phone/O
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm really glad I don't have your job if the typical app price is so important to you. For the price of a movie, you could buy one or two professional apps that will probably give you more time of use each and at more convenient times before you change your phone. So maybe, you're the type of person that never goes to the movie theater because you'll eventually pi
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is that buying an app 'is a waste of money because you are inherently required to re-purchase the exact same application if you want to change platforms'.
My problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that the value/cost ratio of the application is so low that you have no benefit in purchasing the app in the first place. So even if there was a 'universal app store' that let you purchase an app and have it freely transferred to any OS, the value of buying the app from there would be
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I know many people with Iphones, Ipads and Ipods, nearly all of them love the devices but hate Itunes, using it as the only option available to them. Several of my more computer literate friends are unhappy with the restrictions thier Ipods place on them regarding PC transfer rights and lack of backup options for their content, but most never even consider what would happen if their device failed and won't until it does...
OMG for the 1000000th time... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Burn your DRM ladden iTunes Music Store purchaces to disk then rip that disk to mp3 (or whatever format of your choice). OMG DRM free music from the iTunes Music Store that you can "jump ship" with! I know... it's almost rocket surgery, but come on! lol
Re: (Score:2)
"Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.' "
Music - burn to audio disk
Videos - http://www.aimersoft.com/tutorial/burn-itunes-movie-to-dvd.html [aimersoft.com]
Apps - Your SoL, but isn't that the case for any user switching between operating systems/platforms?
Nothing like another dead horse to flog. (Score:4, Interesting)
Loyalty (Score:2)
Whitmore says: "the resulting customer loyalty is unparalleled"
For some Apple users it's loyalty, yes. For others, it's only loyalty in the sense of battered wife syndrome. Sure, they know they're in an abusive relationship and they should leave, but breaking the ties requires too great a shift of momentum.
I grew tired of Apple's behaviour so I switched to Android. It was easy for me because I never purchased any music or movies through iTunes, and I think I only ever paid for two apps so I didn't have any
Re: (Score:2)
For others, it's only loyalty in the sense of battered wife syndrome
You mean like Windows "loyalty"?
Indeed, the whole "it's the user's fault" attitude Microsoft has towards people who have problems with its software is surely blaming the victim, isn't it?
Go ahead, ask your typical Windows user how much he "loves windows" and Microsoft applications.
--
BMO
Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
These are the kind of people who allow their self-worth to be determined by others; their cool-factor by how many Facebook friends they have, and what parties they are/not invited to.
They have convinced themselves of a form of technical superiority, when in reality, their platform is too small to be noticed by virus\malware providers, or most productivity app venders save a few like Adobe.
They consider the
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, OS X and the Airport base stations have had IPv6 support out of the box for many years.
Re:Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple owner here. You have identified a sizable segment of the mac ownership demographic. The demographic that buys apple shit because "apple is cool and I want to buy cool" These people are known as "Mactards"
However there are two other sizable segments.
1) The segment that thinks that Apple is easier and "just works" when compared to Windows. They dont want to fuck about with their PC. (I disagree with these people because Windows7 "just works" too)
2) The segment that thinks that Apple is easier and "just works" when compared to Linux. They dont want to fuck about with configuration files and rc scripts anymore. I fall into this segment. I demand a usable and strong command line with all the proper *nix utilities, but I want a strong windowing system and dont ever want to fuck about with video card drivers ever again.
The apple gui/desktop is superior to kde/gnome/X... not all of us bought apple because apple is cool, some of us bought it while waiting for linux to become more polished.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 falls in the Mactard category for the exact reason you put in parenthesis, personally.
Add to it the people who use Apple because they're designers and all designers should use Apple (which is amusing, since many of the software they use work better on other platforms, and quite a few of the very large design/graphic companies like Pixar are not primarly on Macs)
#2 is a good enough reason. I'd point out that the Windows command line is now pretty damn strong, now that Windows has an actual shell (as oppos
Re:Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a serious point of view?
As a software developer, OSS advocate, multiple-os user, I couldn't disagree more.
My personal laptop is a 1st-gen MacBook Pro when they first made the Intel switch, and I'm using an iPhone 3G. Never used an Apple product until they made the intel switch, and I've loved every minute of OS X.
I still use Windows, Linux and Solaris for personal use, work use and for any other purpose, but if I had a choice I would undoubtedly choose OS X.
Why? Simple, it doesn't suck. I won't say "it just works", but it sucks a hell of a lot less then Windows or Linux. Surely, we can agree on Windows here, and Linux I'm not going to go into some kind of argument, but suffice to say my time is valuable (if not to others, to myself), I don't want to invest tens to hundreds of hours into simply configuring Linux to do what I want, when OS X does out of the box, with a cleaner and (more) unified interface.
Why did I get an iPhone instead of a phone with WebOS, Android or Symbian? Same goddamn reasons, WebOS is a tiny market, Android is fragmented and destroyed by the vendor specific distributions (sad, really, I wish this weren't the case -- or else i'd have gone here). When iPhone 3.0 came out, I was able to upgrade my phone instantly. When iPhone 4.0 beta came out, I was able to upgrade my phone isntantly. My buddy at work with his Android phone? He's stuck on something ridicuously old at 1.5 because he's at the mercy of the combination of his cell provider and handset maker to update their proprietary version of Android.
We all know that the cell phone providers have a long way to go in order to "catch up" with the technology we all want to use; and that's why I went with apple here. They used their brand power to strong-arm a major cell provider into giving them unified control. Sure, I'm "locked in" to Apple for my iPhone. But what do I get for that?
- Free (in a sense, not at additional charge) software and OS ugprades
- Largest app store by an order of magnitude (i seldom pay for anything, tons of free stuff available that do what I want)
- Unified interface to sync/get content (Sure, you see iTunes as locked in, but the app is free, purchased music is DRM free and there is simply no better alternative on any OS. So what the hell are you complaining about? Make a better competitor and maybe someone will use it.)
- The UI is smoother and more intuitive then any other device
- Flash? What? Android doesnt even run flash (except in latest betas, i believe, which wont see an actual piece of hardware for who knows how long, so dont give me that BS)
Until someone else can compete at this level (and that wont be for some time, if they are lucky), then I'll stick with my "locked in" platform, which, has more free and better tools available then the OSS alternatives.
By the way... small share of the market? Apple has moved (literally) over 50 million iPhones, and I believe significantly more iPod Touch's, and the US has a population of what.. roughly 330 million people, and lets say we make some broad assumptions that only about 1/3 (110 million) of those (cut out children, elderly) are even eligible iphone customers, thats nearly 50% market penetration. Small? Are you on crack?
Yes, that's 50 million world wide, but that is just a comparison to put it into perspective.
Caramel (Score:5, Funny)
.
Again, need to think like a non-techie (Score:2)
Lock In vrs Sticky (Score:3, Insightful)
Lock In = iTunes AAC w/FairPlay DRM
Sticky = I don't want to figure out how to migrate my iTunes mp3's to Windows Media Player
Lock In = Outlook Encrypted PST files.
Sticky = I don't want to figure out how to get my e-mail archive transferred from Hotmail to Mac Mail.
Lock In mean you can't get your own data out because it is wrapped in something proprietary. Sticky means you can, but it isn't worth your time and effort.
Apple increases sticky by making it work across multiple devices. My music "just appears" on my computer, ipod and iPhone. Switching all three means migrating my songs to a new desktop os, a new phone os and a new media player with possibly thee new interfaces. That's a powerful incentive to not migrate.
Attention to detail (Score:4, Informative)
That's why I use Apple stuff, anyway. I'm on my second MacBook Pro (my wife took over the old one after 4 years of merciless use, and my son took over her MacBook). We also have two iPhones and an iPad. As if this wasn't enough, my company-issued laptop is also a MacBook Pro. You can tell I'm a satisfied customer.
The reason why I like Apple is their attention to detail. Backlit keyboard, fans that you can't hear (on a Core i7), gorgeous aluminum enclosure, pretty good (for a laptop) display, 7 hours of battery life, 1 inch thick. And it goes on and on from there. GPU acceleration in Aperture and core imaging APIs. Great PDF and color management support. Great audio subsystem. Great UI toolkit. GCC tool chain (and LLVM/Clang in Snow Leopard). Quick to wake up from sleep. Quick to start up and shut down. Automatic, transparent, on-the-fly versioned backups. Software bundle which is actually enjoyable to use (imagine that!). Drag-and-drop installation of apps (for most apps, anyway). And so on and so forth.
AND it's a certified Unix. Sure, you could probably hack it to run on something else (giving up power management and a few other "irrelevant" features), but if you have the dough, the attraction is undeniable. And Apple is perfectly fine with targeting only those who don't mind to pay for the best.
What a crock of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason Apple is doing so well is that they turn out devices that suit the people's needs and are well-designed and reliable. This marketing bullshit about how Apple has some "secret sauce" is just nonsense promoted by those who can't research the stories they write - or those who want to turn out the same old junk and think they should be competitive just because they showed up.
The so-called competitors have been shown up for what they really are and they're squealing. Ever use a Motorola phone? How did you like their excuse for a user interface? Or have you ever used a Blackberry? How many times a week do you have to pull the battery to reboot it? Even the newer Droid phones - great concept, but they leave a lot to be desired in the execution. And that's just the cell phones.
How about tablets? I've used a HP TX series tablet and after that I bought an iPad. There's lots of noise from vaporware vendors but anything like competition for the iPad is nowhere in sight. At least HP looked at the way things are and killed their Windows tablet - they'll bring it out running Web/OS sometime in the future. Probably it'll be delivered by virgins riding unicorns.
Creating and building fully developed and well rounded products isn't a trivial task - Apple spent a lot of time and money making their iThingies good. For those companies who want to compete with Apple on this ground - they're going to have to get rid of their "good enough" mentality and create great products. And even then, they'll be months or years behind Apple. This isn't wrong or unfair; when all the geeks were kicking Apple while they were down, they had some good stuff brewing in the labs. Now that it's out on the street it's a different day and a different game.
I'm hoping that other corporations will be impelled to improve their game and actually compete with Apple. That would be good for everyone - but until they can compete in the market, the promotional BS is nothing more than vapor that isn't worth listening to.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Insightful)
I reject this statement because it is fundamentally not true.
Case in point, the iTunes interface is not intuitive and neither are many of the features. I'm not alone in this belief and I've seen many a novices confused by it. However, people eventually do learn to navigate it.
The same goes for the ipod interface. Thankfully my nano is rock box compatible and I was able to install something that was a bit easier to sync my music with.
I pretty much find all of their interfaces confusing and I really don't have the desire to learn them. Good news is that there are many alternatives on the market.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
aTunes was the name of the software I previously used to use before replacing the OS.
It's fairly straight forward and it's fairly easy to create a selection to sync. I'm not wholly sure how the development has gone, but they may have made it entirely strange by now.
I would really just recommend seeing if rockbox supports your model. I'm afraid I really just enjoy drag and drop for the simplicity of it all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're too kind to itunes. It's not a matter of intuitiveness, the software just sucks, period. With a hundred million devices, most of those users are going to be on Windows. And the Windows version of itunes carries along the ridiculously out-of-place Cocoa look and feel. Why anyone considers that acceptable (and why Apple thinks it's a good idea) is baffling to me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why anyone considers that acceptable (and why Apple thinks it's a good idea) is baffling to me.
For the same reason that the majority of software written for PC and then back ported to Mac kept the windows look and feel. It is far easier if all versions of your app look as identical as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that mean? iTunes is mostly a Carbon app (on the Mac of course, but I presume on windows it uses the QuickTime porting layer which is largely like Carbon)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My brother gave me his ipod touch a few days ago.
I had been trying to figure out how to sync music, videos, change the volume, fast forward, etc. Once I figured it out, it is easy to remember, but it is not very intuitive for me.
Worst is the inability to transfer my ebooks over to it. I had to create a server with all my books on it to get stanza to even see them.
All in all, it is a neat device, but I am saving my money for an android.
The worst UI except for all the others (Score:5, Insightful)
I reject this statement because it is fundamentally not true.
Case in point, the iTunes interface is not intuitive and neither are many of the features.
For novice users, I reject that any solution that is based around files (which I know you would prefer and sounds like what you are using) is easier for non-technical users to understand than the way iTunes works. You stated that you saw novice users confused by iTunes, but they got over it. Well I have seen a lot of novice users that never get over the confusion of how to deal with files.
iTunes "just works" for most users despite being somewhat nonintuitive, because the other solutions are either more clunky to set up or less intuitive still.
Actually that was obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats stupid, people have used floppy disks.
Yes, and people put eery file on that floppy disk in the root directory. They had a physical device with them that they knew had all their stuff.
These days people COULD do that with a USB drive, but generally they do not. They keep it all in the Desktop, or if they are particularly savvy they MIGHT put some data in the system supplied Documents directory.
Before, you were saving files to one place (the disk) instead of migrating them across several...
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Informative)
Believe me, "It just works." I bought my Dad an iMac a couple years ago. Once he got used to quitting programs as opposed just hitting the red X and dragging and dropping programs to install them I've not had to field a single phone call the past couple years. I'm no longer spending an evening wiping his computer and reinstalling because he got a virus or spyware of some kind. And it only took him about a week to make that transition between christmas and new years.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Funny)
"I've not had to field a single phone call the past couple years."
So I guess he's really pissed and won't call you anymore. Sorry.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Insightful)
The same goes for the ipod interface. Thankfully my nano is rock box compatible and I was able to install something that was a bit easier to sync my music with.
When I bought my 30GB click wheel 5th Generation iPod (iPod Video) I was able to figure out how to navigate the menus and use the device within a quick 30 seconds. Pretty much anyone I've given the device to can figure out how to use it quickly and easily, iTunes wasn't any more difficult.
In fact the combination is so incredibly easy the only time I get asked for help with iTunes is from those family and friends who aren't very good with computers in general and they want to burn a CD / DVD. Otherwise how hard is it to insert a disk, click Import and wait a while, eject the disk, click on "Music" in the side menu and see the recently imported disk listed there with all track names, artist, album information, and album art already taken care of automatically. When you plug in the iPod the whole thing auto syncs to the device and when I browse it I can find my music by album title, artist's name, song title, even genre if I so choose. If I had to guess, it was perhaps less than ten minutes from the time I installed the software to when I had my first album imported into iTunes and on the device.
I've taken a look at the Rock Box iPod Video install guide [rockbox.org] and skimmed through all 224 pages of it. The install instructions would be incomprehensible to pretty much anyone I've given my 30GB iPod Video to. Then there is the needlessly complicated navigation of the device, the ultimate use of it, and the need for a separate piece of software that, hopefully, stores the files in a very specific \Artist\Album\Track file directory structure so you can get some semblance of order when browsing your music on it.
Are you really trying to tell us that you couldn't figure out the simple stock Apple iPod / iTunes interface, even my 80 year old non technical grandmother can use my iPod without any coaching, yet you somehow have the technical ability to successfully flash an iPod with a copy of Rock Box and use its needlessly complicated, at least based on what I read in the virtual novel linked above, user interface?
Could I use Rock Box? Sure, taking computers apart and putting them back together has been a hobby of mine for more than 25 years. Am I going to? Perhaps when I replace my current iPod with a Touch or a much larger Classic, my 30GB is full and I still have better than a third of my CD collection still left to import, I'll consider it just for something new and interesting to do. For now though its nice to have a product that's easy to use and just works, where I don't have to spend hours screwing with it just to get it to do its primary function: playing music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit on this one.
I call BS on your BS. I use iTunes and I like a couple of things about it, but it has its problems.
- Have you ever tried moving music in your library? Have fun cleaning up the invalid entries.
- In Windows there's all sorts of resource hogging software - services and helpers running ALL the time, regardless of if I'm using iTunes
- Ever tried to recover music back from your iPod? You use to be able to do that once upon a time, but they decided that there was too much potential for piracy
- My clickwheel has never quite worked right on my iPod. I should have had that fixed under warranty early on, but who knows how long I owuldn't have had my iPod for and what sort of cost/hassles I'd have gone through to RMA. Apple was making it VERY hard to RMA at one point here in Australia. The local consumer body had to step in.
- The click wheel interface sucks for large collections of music. Searching for a song on the iPod can be a pain.
- They make you jump through hoops to use certain features like Genius. In some countries you, like Australia you have to create an iTunes account and supply your credit card. When you "turn off" or don't enable Genius it still gets in the way
- Damn iPod screens attract scratches like moths to a flame. Keep some brasso handy.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Informative)
I call bullshit on this one. Was hooking your USB cable into your nano too hard for you or something? Honestly tho, you drag your mp3s to the iTunes window, and you hook the iPod in. I can only imagine it being easier if the music was beamed directly into my brain.
Of course, the second time you try to add music to it, you'll probably end up with multiple copies of each song on there. I'm sure there are people who haven't had this problem with the iPod/iTunes, but I've yet to actually meet any of them. There's a reason that there's an iTunes menu function to try to find duplicates on your iPod and delete them, and the very existence of that is not a good sign.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Funny)
Yep. Apple computers never crash [wordpress.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is "potentially harder?"
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why Apple make it in the consumer market - the whole concept of "buy only our products" works - we see Microsoft and Linux fanboys going their respective routes as well (OpenMoko, Linux, Linksys Routers etc.) because they want it all to be the same. When that concept works and the software actually integrates nicely with the hardware (something that only apple, as a hardware company, are currently able to achieve because they write the software for their own hardware), the average consumer tends to enjoy. Now if only they had a decent server, I'd think about getting one.
Side note: Find me an easier to deploy and use solution than NetBoot/NetInstall (with DeployStudio) and I'll stop using a 27" iMac for my Windows 7-only gaming rig. That ability to image a machine on the spot with Target Disk or NetBoot is the major selling point for me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fundamental problem with your reply is that you saw "My Computer" and thought, "Oh, a Windows idiot." Then you got up on your elitist Starbucks-induced high and ranted,
If you had read the rest of my post, you'd know that my point was that other devices which use the mass-storage proto
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 funny
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Now, iTunes? It has the iPhone icon in it. It requires more clicks, but everybody knows what it means.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I will not answer for Joe Sixpack. I will answer for me. The two things that have motivated me in regards to Apple and Microsoft is fear and freedom.
I want to live in a world where the reality is that hardware and software is mostly commoditized. In Microsoft's world, Hardware is cheap, but Microsoft owns the OS and all the data. It does not matter if Windows and Office could turn a profit at $25.00 a copy, Microsoft wants to sell them at $400.00 a pop. They do not want me to have the freedom to choose some
Re:apple needs to open mac osx to more hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X only exists to make people want to buy Apple hardware. Allowing OS X on commodity hardware would dilute their brand and suck buyers away from what they're actually trying to sell.
then apple needs a desktop midtower at $800-$1000+ (Score:2)
then apple needs a desktop mid tower at $800-$1000+
or at least have a Imac with mate display.
Re:then apple needs a desktop midtower at $800-$10 (Score:3, Informative)
You can run dual monitors with an iMac. They have a mini DVI output just like a Mac Mini. I know quite a few graphics artists that recently went from older g5 towers to 24" and now 27" iMacs. Some still use their old monitors with an adaptor as a second monitor. Others find the 27" screens has plenty of real estate.
Personally I replaced my G5 tower with a Mac Mini. Since I'm not editing video any more, I found the Mac Mini has plenty of horse power and ram for what I need. Hell I use my iPad more than
Re:Absolute horse shit (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to know where you got your kool-aid
This motherfucker jumped through my wall screaming "OHHHH YEEEAAAHHH" and then poured me a glass of kool-aid.