Re: New iMacs offer more value than competition - report

Dan Johnson stated in post 3u6dnV508J6JLS7UnZ2dnUVZ_gGWnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on
3/8/09 5:46 AM:


I overlooked that; I note that point 1 of your three requirements ("has to
look at comparable machines"), if it isn't entirely trivial, must require us
to use the technique I described for making Macs look reasonably priced.

Well, if you look at non-comparable machines you can pick anything you want!
And notice I state it is in the eyes of the reviewer... not me. I did not
always agree!

Sure, but the reviewer wouldn't be doing it if he wasn't trying to Mac look
good.

What? Why do you think they must have a pro-Mac agenda?

If one is *not* trying to make the Mac look better, one would not use this
approach.

What? One *has* to look at roughly comparable things if one wants to do a
price comparison.

Not at all, not if I follow your meaning for "comparable"- which means
something more like "similar" rather than "possible to compare".

Yes, that is what I mean. If one wants to know if Ford or Toyota makes the
less expensive car, one has to look at comparable Fords and Toyotas...
meaning you have to look at where there vehicle types overlap. They are not
going to be exact, of course! If they were exact there would be no real
need for anyone to do a comparison ... the answer would be 100% obvious
(like two dealers selling the exact same car with the exact same options).

You can, for instance, select the highest-spec PC available at a specific
price point, and compare to the Mac available at that price point. This
approach will tend to make the PC win, at least if you chose the right price
point and look hard enough for a really good bargain for the PC side.

Well, Windows PCs have a wider variety of types - so to be fair you would
have to select two machines that were roughly similar. Again: not exact...

Another approach would be to pick the cheapest PC and the cheapest Mac. You
could then say "The Mac is better, but PCs are cheaper!". This isn't
particularly impressive, but it is an easy way to illustrate a PC price
advantage.

Oh, Windows PCs are targeted for a lower end than Macs are - which does not
show that comparable machines are priced differently.

....
But few Windows users upgrade their OS, in part precisely because of this
problem. They get the new version of Windows with their new computer,
later.

Many Mac users upgrade their OS. Why do you think that is?

Several reasons. First and most obviously, Macs have pretty much zero
penetration in businesses, and *these* are the worst laggards.

Well, it is not really "zero", but certainly Macs are more of home machines
than seen in the business. But even at home I do not see many people
upgrade their Windows machines... Macs often are.

Second, Apple's 'new Macs don't support old OSes' policy also speeds up the
process some. In addition to getting new OS X versions out there more
quickly, it also means that staying on old OS X versions indefinitely is
unviable. You'll have to upgrade.

Oh, I know a couple of people who are still using OS 9... quite happily.
Others, even my wife, are using 10.4 (her machine is *just* before the
cutoff for 10.5, or I would have upgraded her machine). I know some people
with machines newer than hers that could be upgraded - but they have not.
Several are waiting or 10.7, much as many Windows folks are waiting for
Windows 7.

Apple's OS X support policies make this even more true. Apple provides
rather poor support for the prior-to-current version of OS X (presently
Tiger)- much worse than the current version. The version before that gets
*nothing*, and Apple has been pushing new versions of OS X rather quicker
than MS has Windows, to boot.

I hope they boot! :)

Yes, Apple does get newer versions out sooner... but the current version of
Windows is Vista... does MS support the consumer version prior to that, ME?

Because of all this, software vendors can exclusively target the newest OS X
sooner, and indeed they seem very aggressive about this. This makes their
lives easier, but it puts even more pressure on OS X users to upgrade. It's
a bit of a vicious cycle.

Or perhaps it's Windows with the vicious cycle.

There are a number of programs my wife would like to run but cannot based on
having the older OS. This does put pressure to upgrade.

Consider Google Chrome. This apps UI depends heavily on Aero Glass, and its
much vaunted security is done (partly) using Vista's UAC and Vista SP1's
clever NX modes.

If this were OS X, they'd be saying "OX Tiger has no protected mode, no
Glass, and weaker NX support, so we can't do Chrome on it". And users would
accept that, because the are used to it! Chrome would then be a reason to
upgrade to Vista- you want the nifty new app exploiting the features of the
new OS, so you get the new OS.

I can see that: there are a number of programs based on Apple "core"
technologies which do not run on 10.4.

But on Windows, it does not work like that. XP is still quite widely used;
users don't like being forced to upgrade at all.

XP is still the version most users want... look at how companies have been
able to charge *more* for an older version. Where has that happened with
any other product?

So, Google has done quite a lot of ugly hackery to make Chrome work on XP.
It's got a custom window frame there, and does all kinds of strange things
to (imperfectly) emulate UAC protected mode. It even uses SEKRIT APIZ!!!!!
(that is, undocumented native functions) to get the NX bits to work. The
irony is a foot thick on that one.

But in the end, Google goes to quite unreasonable lengths to make Chrome
work on XP, and Windows users have one less reason to upgrade.

Chrome does not do much that looks special on XP... slightly different
windows - but that is not uncommon in Windows.

[snip]
Perhaps not. But they seem to break for the PC anyway.

If your point is Windows has the larger market share, then, of course, no
argument. Then again, when you look at just the markets both Windows and OS
X target that is not always the case.

Well, we've been having that argument. Apple isn't competitive with mid-range
towers (among many other things) because they choose not to be.

But they still aren't competitive there. :D

Right: they are not competative in markets they opt to not compete in. No
argument here!

[snip]
I think I have already supported the notion that *this particular*
comparison is biased, by pointing out various specific errors of fact in it.

I also think that the only real reason to use this "comparable machines"
trick is to bias the results. It's not like anyone purchases computers on
such a basis. Not even die-hard Mac-fans.

Interesting: you think that when you compare similar Macs to Windows machines
there will be a natural "bias" toward the Mac.

I think choosing to limit your comparison to "similar" computers is useless,
except insofar as it introduces a bias.

The bias is artificial, but the whole point of the exercise is to have it.

That is bizarre and illogical. One looks at *similar* machines to make
better comparisons, not biased ones. You compare a Toyota truck with a
similar Ford one .. not a truck with a sedan!

[snip]
Well, the AppleInsider article has quotes talking about "renewed momentum",
which is hard to understand if they don't construe these results broadly.

Apple's market share has been trending upward for some time.

In my opinion this is due to their greatly improved products. But Apple's
share has dipped lately, presumably due to the present economic downturn- and
you'd expect that.

Well, one blip does not a trend make... but they might be heading that way.
But, yes, you would expect people to turn more to the lower end of the price
spectrum... where Apple does not target.

But by the same token, you would not expect these new Macs to "renew" Apple's
"momentum".

Fundamentally, these upgrades are just Apple doing what Apple does, and do not
represent a game-changing event.

The upgrades were OK... nothing spectacular as far as I can tell.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bootcamp & Parallels driving Apple Market Share Increase in the U.S.
    ... finally see just how badly written Vista really is. ... probably already disenchanted with Windows and the path that Vista is ... *Some* people will buy Macs because they can run Windows on the ... Fewer people bought Macs than Windows machines... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Oustanding Value from Dell
    ... while the others are on Windows. ... One of the really great things about Macs is that they *very* unlikely to ... to always have 20 fully functional machines according to a certain spec. ... Nobody in this group likes Dell, but to be fair, they make perfectly ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Bootcamp & Parallels driving Apple Market Share Increase in the U.S.
    ... finally see just how badly written Vista really is. ... His successful use of Windows, to say nothing of its succussful use by ... You see back when Macs weren't PCs, ... Fewer people bought Macs than Windows machines... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: A "disappearing window" bug
    ... NOT a feature, and yet... ... I need to try this on other people's machines. ... There is clearly something very different about the Macs you are ... master upgrade or they all need to be done sequentially. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office)
  • Re: Girls disappearance baffles her parents
    ... upgrade more than one machine per year. ... we are slowly upgrading -- we have three System X machines (two ... i would have said that Macs were ... Apple's not the worst tech support I've ever had (have only had to call ...
    (alt.true-crime)