Apple responds to "I'm a PC"
movies.apple.com
movies.apple.com
If Apple can't market it's products on their own features and has to rely on this kind of negative adverts I'd say it's really hitting a low-point. The ad kind of pisses me off actually.
I might be able to accept this technique if I could see any evidence of Microsoft actually advertising their features.
What the heck is "I'm a PC" advertising? Can you point out the features highlighted in those commercials? What about the "Wow." commercials before that? I'm trying to remember the last Microsoft commercial I saw that actually advertised a feature of its products.
The iPhone ads are almost entirely about features, and brilliantly done. As others have pointed out, many of the "I'm a Mac/PC" ads have highlighted differences between Macs and PCs. I don't see how Microsoft has any standing when it comes to complaining about advertising based on actual product features.
OS X is on the rise: it's getting big pretty quickly. Apple wants to take advantage of that and force every last Apple product they can into the consumer marketplace.
I've had Vista since it came out and am completely happy with it. I thought the Apple commercials were cute, but off-base. They were funny, and they emphasized Mac good points, so I liked them.
But now it just seems mean. Hell, computer commercials are getting like political commercials, and we've all had enough of that lately.
I was perfectly happy with Windows (XP then) when I decided to check the greener grass on the other side of the fence (Red Hat, first, then Debian, then Ubuntu) and I never thought about going back. Linux is so much more refined under the hood that more than compensates for the lack of software in several niches. I recommended my then girlfriend (now wife) to buy a Mac when she wanted to upgrade her PC and she loves it. I wouldn't recommend Linux for her because the added elegance under the hood would not compensate the limitations in dealing with complex (read quirky) Office documents.
Now, we both cringe our teeth because our employers issued Windows running Dell laptops for us. Argh.
For every person with a convert story to the Mac, there's another person who is quite happy to stick with Windows. I'm not sure why so many people consider the prospect so crazy.
Both me and my wife have had the displeasure of using Macs in the past. I even owned one for about 6 months, a mac mini. I replaced it with Vista and Vista's Media Center pretty much owns Front Row (pfft, don't even get me started). The dock sucks compared to the task bar, you can't even see what's running on the dock. Oh and it's slow.
Out of curiosity, what makes Front Row worse than the Media Center? I rarely use Front Row, but I'd like to know what Vista Media Center does better.
The dock absolutely is better than the task bar. The TB is cluttered - why do I need a box for every open window when I can just see the windows (hence Expose)? The Dock shows you running applications (though not background processes, though that's okay since neither does the task bar), it shows you minimized windows, and it shows you your set launch applications. I've argued before and I still believe that the presence of the dock is what makes OS X the superior system. It focuses on efficiency. The fact that it houses the Trash and the new Stacks system makes it even better: it removes a hell of a lot of clutter.
I've never had a speed problem with my computer, though to be fair I use a MBP with 2 gigs of ram. That said, I can run multiple intensive processes at once and still do casual tasks like browsing without a speed hit.
And despite what you've said, I'm still fairly certain. Meaning no disrespect to you, I've had such a wonderful experience with my computer that I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X. Again: your existence shows that I'm not entirely correct, but I'd still believe that of the people who've used both OSes noncasually, more people like the Mac over the PC.
The point is that there are a LOT of people out there that absolutely can't stand Macs. As a matter of fact, besides me and my wife EVERY single person in my office hates them (most of us are programmers and YES, we've actually used them before).
I don't understand the sort of mindset that doesn't like the Mac, but I acknowledge that it exists. I would still guess that that mindset is in the minority, however: as a casual OS it is vastly better than Windows. Your office experience is not indicative of the majority of computer users.
I'm going off of actual experience talking to actual people that don't live in a bubble. What are you going off of? Your imagination?
37signals. The Big Noob. The Tumblr team. Paul Graham once wrote an article on using the Mac. The Omni Group and Panic and Delicious Monster. Coudal. Rososo and Vimeo and NowDoThis. Facebook. Everywhere I looked, people told me that the Mac was wonderful and they were fanatic about it. So I gave it a try and found that I was equally fanatic.
I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect. You're going off of people who work in a single environment. If we wanted to be logical, we'd work off of user statistics, where Apple's rated as one of the most satisfactory companies in the nation. They blow competition away. Hence my confidence in my statement. Now, can we drop it, or are you going to continue to make arguments in a debate that's convincing nobody on either side?
For the record, I'm not JUST going off of my peers at work, I happen to belong to a number of user groups and I also happen to visit many, many real working people in corporate workplaces around the world and I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of awesome web 2.0 developers that absolutely adore ASP.Net...
Anyway, sure, I can drop it as soon as you can drop it :)
You may think there is a huge number of people who can't stand Macs, but I assure you it's a very localized phenomena you are observing. Most certainly you are keeping the wrong company. Do they also install neon lights under their cars?
Classy...
* I had to re-map certain keys on my keyboard just to get a usable # key/'real' British keyboard layout - it ultimately meant I had keys labelled as one thing that did another (thankfully I touch type)
* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc
* Single button mouse - ew! First thing I did was buy another mouse.
* Navigating with the keyboard was all but impossible in many apps because the tab did nothing, or didn't behave in a logical way. Same with backspace.
* I had constant problems with crashing. It was an old G5 IIRC but my older VAIO laptop performed better.
These were just some of the things that annoyed me and reduced my productivity daily. Asking me for reasons why I wouldn't buy a Mac of my own would be another list on top of that, hehe. Anyway, I knew I was doing the right thing getting a PC in when my boss complemented my increased speed at my next annual review.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in picking something that suits your own needs/requirements. If someone thinks that a Mac is the better option, more power to them... I just don't like the stereotype that standard PC users are awaiting some sort of holy intervention from the God of Macs.
Huh? I'm pretty platform agnostic, but I've always liked this about the Mac. The Command key can be held down my shifting my thumb to the left of the spacebar and I can copy+paste without ever pulling my hands off the home row. Trying to hold control with my pinky and twist around to hit various key combos always felt more like a contortionist act to me.
This is Microsoft you are talking about.
One thing Microsoft can never, ever earn is the right to sympathy. You may say that business is cut throat, and thus Microsoft's pitiless, air supply choking history is entirely justified. But feeling sorry for Microsoft because someone is mocking them is just absurd. They have richly earned several lifetimes of ridicule.
That path made Microsoft more successful in the short term (particularly after Jobs was exiled) but in the long term making good things seems to be the winning strategy.
Also, shipping great stuff requires you to have great hackers to build it, and great hackers have principles. They limit how evil a company can be. You can see this most clearly at Google. If they tried to do anything too evil, they'd face an internal rebellion. Apple employees seem a bit more intimidated by Jobs, but they are pretty idealistic too. A lot would quit if Apple went too far, and Jobs is smart enough about people to know that.
Interesting to see this quote from Jobs during today's Apple earnings call:
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them."
Almost like he knew we were having this conversation. :)
Speaking of the 80ies, Apple is the one that wanted to control both the OS and the hardware (still true today, from phones to computers), and Apple is the one that sued MS over 'look & feel' issues.
Apple choosing to make their own OSes instead of buy them from an outsider supplier was in those days no different from e.g. building displays or keyboards rather than buying them from suppliers.
But I think the point still stands that Microsoft has managed to cause far more harm during their reign than Apple, precisely because they have been more successful. I also think that Apple is somewhat constrained in the damage they can do, because Steve Jobs wants to be a Tyrant of Taste, more so than Ruler of All He Surveys. He has little interest, for example, in the mass business market or the clunky boxes at the bottom of the market. To have Apple branded boxes at that price range, with all the compromises that entails, seems to horrify Jobs.
As for other product areas, probably the most tyrannical is iTunes. But even there, the damage is constrained by the fact that the majority of people still just pirate their music, anyway.
Their NDA for the iPhone, and the tyranny over the application store, are worse than anything Microsoft has done to the consumer. They're just limited in scope by the fact that they own such a small % of the overall phone market, but if they ever get the kind of market share there that Windows has, everyone will hate them far more.
Without the DRM, we'd see a much more fragmented player market. iPods might still be the leaders, but they'd almost certainly have a lower market share.
People think iPod sounds reliable, and MP3 player sounds unstable. They go for the iPod because they think it's the only one there is.
My only argument is that Apple has caused much less damage than Microsoft because they have been less successful, and in that sense Microsoft maintains the greater negative karma balance. Difference between attempted murder and committed murder, I suppose.
I find the grudge most people in the community have against MS a little juvenile and not very well-reasoned.
Since Netscape was taken down, we've seen a world where hackers can execute an idea and become successful based on their execution, sometimes abundantly so. I do not think it's accidental that this period largely coincides with Microsoft losing their anti-trust case.
Before then, Microsoft would just wait until a market formed, then take it over or destroy it by bundling something with one of their monopoly products. People who had a dream of creating a successful software business knew Microsoft's business practices made that extremely unlikely.
So, yes, many developers who were around during Microsoft's heyday likely are carrying a grudge that must seem juvenile to anyone familiar with the much less threatening Microsoft of today. Whether it's juvenile to have bad feelings towards an organization that snuffed out a lot of optimism and ambition, I'll leave to you to decide.
Then again, I feel Macs do stupid crap too, so it would seem to be a two way street.
For instance, that window display where they're all sideways and you can scroll through them. I'm certain that's a rip off of Expose on the Mac. The difference is that Expose provides a very quick-n-easy way to access your windows, whereas that display seemed like it didn't make things particularly easy. And I forget if I tested it, but I very much doubt that it was a spring-loaded view, either.
The Aero theme is another instance. Compare that to Leopard's Aqua. They're both attempts to look modern and beautiful, but Leopard goes about it my making all of its chrome minimal. The buttons are small, the borders on every last window are 1px. With Vista, you get bulk hanging off of every window and the buttons look cartoony.
I won't go into the OS operations, because - again - I think that anything that I say will only invite flaming on the other side, and frankly I'm sick and tired of Hacker News having the same fucking OS wars that every other social news site does, and I don't want to flame things. But OS X feels like a complete solution in a way. Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection. From the feel of the computers to small things like the message windows (there was an article here talking about on OS X message windows are more direct than their Win/Lin equivalents) things are polished to a fault. And that's something that Windows or Linux need to "fix" before they can really seem like a decent competitor in my eyes.
A-fucking-men. Almost as bad as having the same profane reaction comments that add noise without signal to the discussion.
Still, what works for you works. If Ubuntu's doing the job for you, then congrats and have fun. Just don't make the mistake of comparing it to the Mac systems without spending a lot of time in each.
2) What? I don't think many people will agree with you on that aspect. The fact that most Linux crashes you can just reset X and be back at the login screen, where as a Windows crash needs a full reboot means that even if Linux did crash more often - which I don't think it does - you spend less time getting screwed
3) Really? I haven't found much of a difference on my Dell laptop.
and 4) Probably true
2) My Windows XP machine hasn't crashed once since I've had it (over two years). Ubuntu 6, 7, and 8 have all consistently crashed when resuming from hibernate on my laptop (Lenovo T60, one of the most common in the world).
3) Ubuntu 8 usually runs about 45 minutes to an hour less than Windows XP on my laptop's battery.
2) There are still reliability problems. I'd include driver issues as a reliability problem.
From my experience with it, it works great if and only if you can find the right drivers. When it runs well, I like it more than Vista and most likely more than XP. But XP is certainly more supported overall, and that's another thing that's definitely worth considering.
The keyboard on the newer computers is beautiful. I didn't like the old big keyboard: the new ones feel wonderfully responsive to me. The heat is a problem, but I guess I'm biased, because I rarely have my computer on my lap. I keep it on my desk or in my bed. And I use a fan program to speed up my fans when I need to, and it usually works.
The proprietary formats are a pain, yes, but that doesn't affect me very often. With iTunes, I get most of my music from other sources. I have perhaps 10 CDs that I got from iTunes, and that's mostly from Plus, so it's open enough to send to other people. Everything else is MP3 and MP4, which means - among other things - I can click and drag songs to iChat and it works.
The mail import took me a long time, for Gmail. But it imported my other emails first, and with Gmail it imported mostly the archived email, so I could use it right out of the box. I don't use Maildir, so mail works pretty much beautifully for me.
What does that optimization do for the fonts? Do you have an example? And either way, I'd take the Apple default fonts over anything else I've seen to date. I'd kill to keep Zapfino.
the optimization just gives you really nice smoothing (i wish i could upload pictures here). i currently use the android font on emacs 23 on a thinkpad (black on light blue) and i find it to be much easier on the eyes (the powerbook fuzziness gave me headaches)
anyhoo, enjoy. the hardware is indeed beautiful. and the new aluminum ones sure are tempting (but i'll wait until someone gets ubuntu working properly on them)
and not to beat a dead horse, i really tried _hard_ to get the powerbook to work for me. i was really determined to like it. but no dice: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131930
Then come back and tell me how much it sucks.
Mac is very slick, but Apple isn't particularly kind to third-party developers who build software for their platform.
Or do you mean the choice to tinker with every little aspect of your computer? Because the system's entirely moddable. I mean, I would never voluntarily hack my computer, because I cherish it the way it is, but I remember there being a lot of buzz about the Gaia Suite, which is a complete redesign of the OS.
Do you mean the lack of programs available? Because you can get MS Office if you really don't like iWork (though iWork is wonderful, in this user's opinion), and you can get replacements for every single iLife program. It's just that most people don't, because iPhoto and iTunes and Mail and GarageBand are really all excellent programs. (The one program on my entire system that I dislike is iDVD, and I feel like one bad program is a small concession to make.)
If by "flexibility" you mean a non-unified system, then you might have a point, but I like knowing that the same keyboard shortcuts work for every single application I have. I like knowing the menus work the same. Hell, I like having a system-wide spellcheck. You've still got choice - I'm sure you could make a new spellchecker - but really, what's the point if it works?
If you're going to diss an operating system in a community of people who really are enthusiastic about the computers that they use, at least make a good point, like the guy who mentioned Apple's Java fark-up. You can't come in blindly making insults and expect anything good to come of it. So how about you come up with some good criticisms, and in return I will try to be fairly critical of your operating system in return.
Oh, but since you mentioned it...no I didn't mean any of the things you mentioned. I value the flexibility of being able to do what I want to do, the way I want to do it.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
I can buy a Windows laptop that becomes a tablet. I can buy a Gyration (wii style) remote for my Media Center. I can get a CableCARD tuner. I can buy any graphics card under the Sun. Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Besides hardware, I also have flexibility in how I can build programs. You got xCode and Objective-C and that's all Apple will really help you with. Sure, they let you build programs in other languages like Python but since it's not part of "the ONE true way", they won't really help you much.
Microsoft OTOH supports C, C++, C#, F#, VB.Net and VB classic and they'll actually help you out with any of those (yes, even VB classic if you ask them nicely). Besides all of the officially supported languages, you still have every single language that's popular on *nix right now (Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.). Oh and the environment libraries are simply the best (.Net, WPF, DirectX, etc.) but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind. I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
This isn't in response to any particular comment, but it's based on a personal preference so I'm burying it here.
Yes, exactly like it. That post was also pointless.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
Apple has complete control over their product. I think that is a good thing. I would shudder to think of OS X running on a Dell or an HP: it would be incomplete. As for iTunes, you can add music from outside of it and it still works. The App Store I'm hoping becomes more open - you've got a point there - but it lies entirely outside of Leopard.
Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Apple has had a choice for a long time: the choice between compromise and excellence. I am glad that they have never dumbed down their products for the sake of cheapening their product line: it has kept the brand as pure and as good as it ought to be.
but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
I'm not a programmer, so I can't argue with you here. You might have a point here: I'm not entirely certain.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
I'm not a power user. I like getting things done quickly, absolutely, and Apple makes it possible to operate entirely out of the command line if you want. I don't go that far. And as far as "power casual" - intuitive AND quick - Apple is bar none. Its ease of use is staggering compared to Windows or Linux.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind.
Of course I see that. I see it and like it. Nothing good has ever come out of being mild. Apple is certain that its way is the right way, and I almost always agree with it, and because of that, they've created the far superior product.
I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
See, people call Apple users smug, and then say dickish things like this. I've never understood that. Of course I love Apple, but I try to at least be mature about it. Windows users get so childish and then turn around and call us smug.
If you don't want to debate, then don't debate. But don't jump in, insult something, and then get prim when the conversation doesn't end there.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection" or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
or
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
or
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection"
It's not dickish if it's true.
or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
This isn't passive aggressive. This is genuinely what I believe.
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
It's not dickish if it's true.
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
It's not dickish if it's true.
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
I've had arguments with Windows users that actually were productive and led to interesting arguments being made. That's why when I write, I deliberately avoid, y'know, calling people dickish. It's why I've avoided insulting you directly during this debate. I mean, you've got an opinion, and my opinion's that your opinion's wrong, but I genuinely think it's possible for people who disagree with one another to learn from each other, and I think it's only possible if you leave the discussion open enough to let the other person talk.
This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities. You're attempting to get some sort of emotional response, and I'm treating this like a debate. I'd rather not have things get ugly on HN: I made that mistake before and it led to a really stupid pissing war. I'd like to believe that you've genuinely got something interesting to say, and you come close to making interesting points, but then you piss that away and start the personal attacks.
Stop it.
That's what I thought. kthxbye.
When you enter a debate with a condescending attitude, that's an insult right from the get-go.
Maybe don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
You've explained yourself part of the time, but at other times you end up sneering and saying nothing useful.
Sorry, not my problem.
In comparison, the Vista campaign is reported at $300 million today.
I think we can say that Apple spends comparable money on advertising as Microsoft.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does make this particular commercial annoying and misleading; a big disappointment from the clever ones that began this ad campaign.
Gizmodo had a similar reaction to many of you, that it's a pissing match and normal people don't care, but actually I think it's the opposite. People LOVE the Mac ads, even people who don't use a Mac think they are funny. This is another instance of the Techie echo-camber getting in the way, so what if some hardcore techies don't like them because Linux is superior, btw it's not, the market at large loves the ads and it's getting them to take a better look at Apple computers, end of story.
I'd rather they work on reducing the difference in price between the pc world and the mac in laptops. It used to be a couple hundred dollars difference, which I'm ok with because that, to me, is the price of OSX, but its getting increasingly harder to justify the expanding price difference.
If/when the OSX86 project gets to the point where their ISO is a no-brainer install of OSX on cheap dell/acer (etc.) laptops then Apple will have to reconsider its pricing.
The irony here (like rain on your wedding day!) is that it's actually Apple with that big pile of cash spending it on advertising, while MSFT goes back to the drawing board to come up with an O/S that more people like...
If apple cannot convince a frugal programmer like me who would love to own a mac - I do not know how even these ads can help them much in the general pc market. I think they will remain limited only to folks who really appreciate their commitment to design and would pay so much extra just for that.
I guess these ads have an audience after all. But then it is a waste of the apple advertising dollar to preach to the choir.
I can't wait to see Microsoft's meta-meta-response.
The desperation is starting to seep through.
It's not polite to tease, but when the head of the pack shows they're susceptible to it, it's going to happen.
Ad reflects what differentiates Apple from MS. Original, highly creative and perfect.
I don't understand the new Microsoft PC adverts either. What does having glasses have to do with anything?
That is exactly the point Microsoft is trying to make. The Apple ads personify Windows as a glasses-wearing dork, while the Microsoft ads try to dispel that association.
Charlton considered for a moment, and then responded. I was unkind, he admitted, Not unfair, but unkind.
Now as to lame, is it there some factual error? Is Microsoft actually spending more on fixing Vista than advertising it? My feeling is that if the ad is correctly representing Microsoft's strategy, there is nothing lame about depicting it. The un-lame thing about the ad is that it never says Microsoft is wrong, it shows you the facts through a skit and lets you decide what to do.
I wonder if people would react differently if these ads were SNL skits. I have a feeling that some people are so emotional about one company or the other--which is odd, these are companies, after all, not religious edifices--that they simply cannot sit back and enjoy a good laugh.
The reasonably insightful comment on reddit was that this isn't just a pissing contest between MS and Apple - it's a pissing contest between Crispin Porter and TBWA (the ad agencies)...
I think one has the more appealing product to market, the other has the bigger budget and the defensive position. It's a fairly textbook marketing battle between the entrenched number one and the upstart niche player.
I considered that argument, but note that they are still pushing Vista to consumers and businesses, hard. So I think the ad is fair in that it discusses what MSFT is doing to Vista itself.
If MSFT's $300 million was spent telling consumers to hang onto XP and wait for Windows 7, that argument would be a little more persuasive.
So... if you believe that the problem with Vista is its perception, then of course the solution is communication, not code. Entirely reasonable if you start with the premise that it's a fine piece of engineering and a good product.
I think the main issue with Vista is that there is no obvious huge improvement that would motivate people to pay the retail price to upgrade. For example, I am interested in UAC and some of the other security features but I am reluctant to buy Vista just to get them, especially if Windows 7 is just a year or so away.
Plus, upgrading Windows has always been a hassle in the past. Right now, I guess Windows XP mostly works okay for me, so I am sticking in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd.
high end flame. :)
This is like boxing. Mac ads have had pc's reputation on the ropes in the collective unconscious. All the sudden, after getting beat on barely throwing a punch, PC comes out swinging. Even lands a blow on macs chin, shakes him up a bit. But before PC can land another punch, this uppercut takes out 3 of his teeth and drives the cartilage in his nose into his brain.
Now, everyone who sees both ads will think "Why is microsoft spending $$$ on this without fixing vista?" This ad, and it's partner on censoring vista, just short circuited Microsofts 300 million dollar campaign. This is microsoft being completely outclassed by people who just get it.
It's more like being in a science class and watching an argument between a creationist and a real scientist.
"Evolution is good. Things should evolve and get better and we shouldn't be afraid of it."
"I did not come from a monkey. God made the Supermall 6,000 years ago, and it's always bad when things change, which means I'm afraid of anything ever getting better. Can I have that banana?"
Motoko: "Yawn. It's like watching sports."
Do you mean Microsoft? If so, it sure as hell hasn't scratched the business world. It's only knicked the consumer world a couple percentage points. I'd reconsider your position.
Further, this is kind of old and becoming a nonissue in today's world. With the migration towards non-platform-specific consumer usage of systems (ie. internet) I don't see as heavy of a need for some bloated consumer operating system.
I'm no huge Windows fan. I've used countless operating systems; C64, Cisco IOS, HP-UX, AS/400, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows 3.x-Vista, Server NT-Server 2k8, Linux derivatives galore, BSD. While developing/working on them and I can say I'm not really impressed with what Apple offers.
Apple is just a gimmick in the world of computing systems. You can claim that consumers aren't nerds that love command lines, but what do you think drives the media infrastructure that panders to all the fun-filled music and video that Apple users love to waste time on? It sure as hell isn't Mac OS.
Computers primarily run the world's business. Steve Jobs' goal is not to get Apple tangled up with "boring" business stuff. Hell, look at the stupid hipster getup the "Mac Guy" wears in the comercials. Jobs put the noose around Apple's neck when he set the goal of being consumer-orientated instead of business-orientated if his plan is digital world domination.
Now some more ycombinator specific points. When you get together with a bunch of web startup owners or attend a conference, do you see more or less macs than the overall market would indicate? Would you say there are more than 1 mac per 10 startups? Would you say that what startups are using, they are quite likely to support as they grow?
Good grief.
Oh, that's cute...you think xCode, Python and MySQL can actually be compared to Visual Studio, C# and SQL Server.
I guess I just feel spoiled by Visual Studio, while every time I start something in Python I feel like I have to spend so much time trying to find quality tools to make it do what I want. It just doesn't feel like a very complete solution to me.
I said Exchange because it's the one thing I've read about. I am not a businessperson, nor am I a programmer: the closest I get to programming is PHP, because it's all that I need. I said that that's what Apple's been up to, because it is: they're obviously pushing to make Macs business-friendly.
I'd guess that most businesses don't have computers for the sake of programming, though. Most people in the workplace don't program. They email, they discuss things with coworkers. With a few tweaks, the Mac ought to be ready for that sort of thing in a secure environment. And that's just as much a part of business as coding is.
I don't at all think that mac's polish is a gimmick. We know that using 2 monitors increases productivity. This is a general case of the fact that how you connect to your computer directly alters how your brain has to work in order to use the computer. It seems to me that a better user interface and a more clean design are important ways to decrease the cognitive friction with the computer. You know those little logos they put on pc laptops palmrests? Each of those, just by being in your visual field, causes a cascade of preconscious neurological activity as your brain triggers all the things it associates with the logos. Thus, just by sitting down to work in that environment, your are decreasing the brain power you can spend working. The superior mac UI generates much less cognitive friction, allowing me to focus more of my cognitive processes to thinking about what I'm working on. You may think this is a gimmick, I think it's essential to being maximally productive.
It's like the band velvet underground. Sure, there were more popular bands, but fans of velvet underground largely created later progress in subsequent waves of musical progress.
But that's just my opinion.