[LEROY JENKINS]

Here are the clues. Microsoft is woefully late with its next Windows upgrade, while Apple is far ahead with even the current version of OS X. Apple is moving to Intel processors and hackers have already shown that OS X can run fine on non-Apple hardware. But Apple doesn't want to give up its profitable hardware business to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. And remember, Apple totally dominates the portable music player market and will probably sell 25 million iPods or more this year.
Every one of those iPods is a bootable drive. What if Apple introduces OS 10.5, its next super-duper operating system release, and at the same time starts loading FOR FREE the current operating system version -- OS 10.4 -- on every new iPod in a version that runs on generic Intel boxes? What if they also make 10.4 a free download through the iTunes Music Store?

[analogika]

Next time, quote your source.

Which, when in doubt, is slashdot.

[rickey939]

[nredman]

come out with a new mac called "LEROY"

[TETENAL]

Making their operating system freely downloadable with iTunes for their competitors' machines. That's a master mind's business model.

[ghporter]

Apple does NOT want to crumble Windows. That would NOT be good for Apple because instead of all the losers and lame-os congregating on Windows cheapy PCs, they'd expect Apple to hold their little hands and make things as weird-easy-hard as they are in Windows. No thanks!

To make a big dent in the Windows marketshare is what Apple SHOULD work for, and the "previous version of our OS FREE with iTunes" ploy has a real chance of doing that, particularly if it means the downloaded version of Tiger would run on generic Intel-based machines. I think it's the "third market" in homebuilt and local shop built computers that would tip the balance.

[The Godfather]

Why wait until Leopard comes out? Apple should release Panther x86 for free with every iPod now.

[C.J. Moof]

They could hand out free licenses to OS X on Intel and you still won't see corporate america adopting it. What IS manager with 2 brain cells to rub together would upgrade half his department out of a job? Maintaining their jobs is more important than supplying users with the best tools available.

[Chuckit]

I guess since their configs would be unsupported, they may as well get it free…

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by C.J. Moof

They could hand out free licenses to OS X on Intel and you still won't see corporate america adopting it. What IS manager with 2 brain cells to rub together would upgrade half his department out of a job? Maintaining their jobs is more important than supplying users with the best tools available.

Cutting headcount and thus budget is MORE important in many cases than maintaining a large (and too-smart-for-its-own-good) personal empire. Bean counters can't do much more than count beans, and a stable, thoroughly developed, incredibly useful and FREE OS would mean thousands of "knowledge workers" whose only credential is an arcane knowledge of Windows Server back end stuff might have to get real jobs.

[misc]

"Let's do this..."

[turtle777]

Ok then...

PLUTH WON.

-t

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Making their operating system freely downloadable with iTunes for their competitors' machines. That's a master mind's business model.

You're on the right track... I say Apple should stick with their current "OS X will only run on Apple hardware" mantra while leaking the OS (which will work on all PCs) onto the web. This allows Apple to not have to support all those non-Apple PCs while expanding their OS user base.

Saturate the market and get 'em hooked ala MS Office strategy in the 90s.

[simonjames]

IF Apple wants to hurt Micro$oft then Apple must make sure that Windows user's software investment will work on OSX. Corporations and mums&dads will not switch if it is going to cost a heap in new software.

IMO I don't believe Apple want to hurt M$ at all. One of my axioms is to hang out with people who are older, fatter and shorter than I am - makes me look good without trying and whilst M$ is around Apple looks ripped!


Market share versus profit margins
AFAIK for Apple to increase the former it needs to decrease the latter

Mercedes have done it but they've now got a 12+ car line up - from the cheap end of the market to the most expensive
But Mercedes have also paid for it - in both quality and reputation. Do you want OSX to have as many security flaws as windows?

[MacMan4000]

I would vote for napalm and... oh wait, wrong kind of take down.

I still think a "try a mac for 30 days free" deal would hook a lot of people, most people don't realize everything they can do on windows (except maybe high end gaming) is possible on a Mac.

The trial macs would need to be loaded with all the usual software, M$ office, etc.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacMan4000

I still think a "try a mac for 30 days free" deal would hook a lot of people, most people don't realize everything they can do on windows (except maybe high end gaming) is possible on a Mac.

Yeah, that's how my family originally got started with Macs back in '84, the "test-drive a Mac" program.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by LEROY JENKINS

Here are the clues. Microsoft is woefully late with its next Windows upgrade, while Apple is far ahead with even the current version of OS X. Apple is moving to Intel processors and hackers have already shown that OS X can run fine on non-Apple hardware. But Apple doesn't want to give up its profitable hardware business to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. And remember, Apple totally dominates the portable music player market and will probably sell 25 million iPods or more this year.
Every one of those iPods is a bootable drive. What if Apple introduces OS 10.5, its next super-duper operating system release, and at the same time starts loading FOR FREE the current operating system version -- OS 10.4 -- on every new iPod in a version that runs on generic Intel boxes? What if they also make 10.4 a free download through the iTunes Music Store?

Interesting idea, but some serious user-related problems:

1) Downloading a DVD sized OS would require a lot of bandwidth for both Apple and the customer

2) The customer would need a DVD burner and plenty of support to burn a copy of 10.4 for him/herself. Is it possible to boot the 10.4 installer off of the iPod? If so, how easy would it be to erase the installer off of the iPod, and how hard would it be to share this 10.4 install with your friends?

3) I think people need more than to be brought to the Apple trough in order to become switchers. There are many concerns that people have. I think those that are not concerned with these issues will be more inclined to make a clean break and just get a Mac. I could be wrong about this though.

[freudling]

Why do you people want Mac to "take Windows"? Mac would lose its veneer if most everyone used it. I posted about this recently: Imagine everyone owning a Mac.

[AuPhalanx]

I don't think Apple has to do anything to take down Windows. Every time I boot up my Windows box, Windows takes itself down all by itself.

Have fun... Tony.

[Salty]

There's no chance they're going to be allowing you to download Tiger for free off iTunes... you know how long that'd take? It' d be mostly wasted downloads.

Now what would make sense would be a trial OS X disc with every iPod sold. Hey try this, see how you like it. Maybe not have it be entirely feature complete or something. Just give users a taste, I dono. But either way I think Apple will do just fine the way they're going now.

[JoshuaZ]

Some very large and massive advertising campaigns aimed at the average Windows person. Maybe a 'trade in your PC for a Mac" sort of deal where they get a discount.

Maybe give away iPod with new Macs. that would do it for a lot of people.

[Hawkeye_a]

Most geeks/nerds are content with waiting for Vista...heck they have waited for almost six years, whats another year. Chances are if they havent switched to OSX already, i doubt having intel under the hood would make a big difference to them.

Apple has the competitive advantage with their operating system, and have had it since 2001. Apple should have announced the Mactel transition last year when IBM missed the 3Ghz(July) deadline. That way we'd have Macintels on sale right now. That would mean the hardware advantage that the wintel world has right now would be no more.

Apple clearly had the advantage in it's foundation for scaling OSX(and its applications). Cocoa are a work of art. Windows dosent have that....yet. Apple has been exploiting that very well so far (iLife, iWork, FCP, etc). There's a lot of room to grow. What Apple needs to ensure that people can have both OSX and Windows bootable on the same machine, thatw ay the wintel geeks wont be tied to a particular platform, and so would seriously consider Macintel hardware. That way nerds(if curious) will install it, experience it, and then....within time, switch. That way Apple gets its foot in the door, and suddenly the marketshare starts experiencing phenominal growth.(of course people will still have Windows....but they will also be using OSX...which means developers will pay more attention).

The target/goal is clear..... Wintel users. Right now, all Apple needs to worry about is getting Macintels out before Vista, hopefully 6-12 months before Vista.

As far as bootable iPods.....isnt OSX bootable on the iPod already ? I remember reading somewhere that Apple is working on implementing 'Home on your iPod' for OSX users....kinda like taking ur home folder with you whereever you go(it would be a dream going to n from work, without having to carry your latop around). And having your home folder auto-sync on your pod is a perfect way of doing that. The only barrier would be logging in on a different machine, im not sure how OSX would recognize a user whose folder is on their iPod(that would be really insecure imo). but if they get the design of such a system right, it would be great for pro users. especially graphics/video/developer/educators oriented users, who work at home n in the office.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Maybe give away iPod with new Macs. that would do it for a lot of people.

Yes.

Once all the iPods(and minis) get a color screen, Apple should give away a special edition white iPod mini (4GB mono screen) with every iMac and iBook that comes with an intel processor. And a silver iPod mini(4GB, mono screen) with every powerMac and powerBook that comes with an intel processor.

So many businesses are using iPod-give-aways to drive sales, it's rediculios. I think Apple needs to use this product to it's advantage as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As far as bootable iPods.....isnt OSX bootable on the iPod already ? I remember reading somewhere that Apple is working on implementing 'Home on your iPod' for OSX users....kinda like taking ur home folder with you whereever you go(it would be a dream going to n from work, without having to carry your latop around). And having your home folder auto-sync on your pod is a perfect way of doing that.

Yeah, but you can't boot from just a home folder. That feature was just to let an already-installed OS recognize home folders on iPods as being users on that machine.

That said, iPods should be bootable anyway, since Macs support Firewire booting. People just don't normally stick system installs on there.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

The only barrier would be logging in on a different machine, im not sure how OSX would recognize a user whose folder is on their iPod(that would be really insecure imo). but if they get the design of such a system right, it would be great for pro users. especially graphics/video/developer/educators oriented users, who work at home n in the office.

I think this feature has been scrapped for the time being. It was planned for Panther (and in fact made it on the Panther Web site if I recall), but I haven't heard anything since then. Has anyone else? My hunch is that they just decided it was too insecure for whatever reason.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Most geeks/nerds are content with waiting for Vista...heck they have waited for almost six years, whats another year. Chances are if they havent switched to OSX already, i doubt having intel under the hood would make a big difference to them.

Apple has the competitive advantage with their operating system, and have had it since 2001. Apple should have announced the Mactel transition last year when IBM missed the 3Ghz(July) deadline. That way we'd have Macintels on sale right now. That would mean the hardware advantage that the wintel world has right now would be no more.

Apple clearly had the advantage in it's foundation for scaling OSX(and its applications). Cocoa are a work of art. Windows dosent have that....yet. Apple has been exploiting that very well so far (iLife, iWork, FCP, etc). There's a lot of room to grow. What Apple needs to ensure that people can have both OSX and Windows bootable on the same machine, thatw ay the wintel geeks wont be tied to a particular platform, and so would seriously consider Macintel hardware. That way nerds(if curious) will install it, experience it, and then....within time, switch. That way Apple gets its foot in the door, and suddenly the marketshare starts experiencing phenominal growth.(of course people will still have Windows....but they will also be using OSX...which means developers will pay more attention).

The target/goal is clear..... Wintel users. Right now, all Apple needs to worry about is getting Macintels out before Vista, hopefully 6-12 months before Vista.

As far as bootable iPods.....isnt OSX bootable on the iPod already ? I remember reading somewhere that Apple is working on implementing 'Home on your iPod' for OSX users....kinda like taking ur home folder with you whereever you go(it would be a dream going to n from work, without having to carry your latop around). And having your home folder auto-sync on your pod is a perfect way of doing that. The only barrier would be logging in on a different machine, im not sure how OSX would recognize a user whose folder is on their iPod(that would be really insecure imo). but if they get the design of such a system right, it would be great for pro users. especially graphics/video/developer/educators oriented users, who work at home n in the office.

Are geeks and nerds Apple's target audience?

[Chuckit]

If they were not, I don't think Apple would be advertising The Power of Unix so much.

[The iMac Man]

WooHoo.... Leeeeeerooooooy Jeeennnnnkiiiiinnnnsssss!

Hey, at least he's got chicken!

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are geeks and nerds Apple's target audience?

No..thats not what i meant . So far Apples target audience has been education and art-pros, and rightley so. They have also won over a lot of people from the Linux community.

When you look at PC nerds and geeks....they seem to be die hard fans of Wintel because their setup can get an extra fps in a shooter(which include wintel journalists). Eliminating the hardware lock to the MacOS, might just be the way to convince these ppl to invest in a Macintosh.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

No..thats not what i meant . So far Apples target audience has been education and art-pros, and rightley so. They have also won over a lot of people from the Linux community.

When you look at PC nerds and geeks....they seem to be die hard fans of Wintel because their setup can get an extra fps in a shooter(which include wintel journalists). Eliminating the hardware lock to the MacOS, might just be the way to convince these ppl to invest in a Macintosh.

Right, so do you buy into the "trickle-down" idea where geeks will convert their non-geek friends, or do you think that this market is actually significant in and of itself? I would say to the latter that this market is actually pretty tiny.

[Y3a]

Apple needs to write Access for Mac, and have it fully compatible with PeeCee versions.

But most "I.T." departments have PeeCee techs, not Computer techs. They just do Windows. The few LINUX geeks would probably like the Apple but you still have to deal with the multitude of PC software makers who make their livings writing stuff that FIXES WINDOWS who would be out of a job.

[ghporter]

A lot of "geeks and nerds" are quite interested in switching, or at least trying MacOS. But I can build a computer to try out any Linux distribution for about $200... It costs a LOT more to just get a taste of OS X. THAT is why there are so many Windows-only people out there.

Those IT departments have a bunch of PC techs because that's what they need to support. If the world ran on logic instead of counting beans, there would be a bunch of Linux dudes, a few Windows guys, and some Mac folks too, because companies would buy the right tool for the job instead of buying everyone a large wrench and trying to get them to drive nails, turn in screws, and paint walls with it.

Access is way overrated. I got some extra credit at work for building a rather complex Access database. I could have done a better job just by coding something from scratch, but brand new custom code doesn't fall into any of the allowable categories, though a new Access application does. Go figure the bureaucratic mentality.

[kcmac]

I never understand this whole way of thinking. As long as Apple is alive and kicking and continues to push ahead on the edge, who really cares what Microsoft does or does not do. They both need competition.

It's good to see Apple and it's products getting more attention though.

[Cipher13]

A large part of the problem is ignorance, and is the fault of the upper-echelon of geeks. Many very intelligent, very computer literate people that I know (mostly programmers, infact) still think that OS X is the same as OS 9 and even 8, and hasn't changed since they were in high school. These people don't know that it's got a Unix backbone, or anything like that.

These people have massive influence; they build PCs for their friends and family, and act as tech support. If these people were using Macs, and supplying Macs to people instead... but they don't, because they don't know. Apple needs to advertise not just to beginners with ads stating simplicity, but also to 'geeks' with ads telling of its power.

That last point brings out another problem; this class of people generally will not buy a computer, pre-built. They want to build it themselves. This is a bigger issue than it seems, because of the way it filters down.

Thirdly, games. If Apple got the gaming market, alone, that would boost their marketshare dramatically. At their current rate, they'll never have it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Right, so do you buy into the "trickle-down" idea where geeks will convert their non-geek friends, or do you think that this market is actually significant in and of itself? I would say to the latter that this market is actually pretty tiny.

I would go with the prior. Geeks, are usually tied to games, and none of them are gonna want to spend extra to get the luxury of using OSX. The developer geeks have linux...and theyare gravitating towards the Mac cuase of the unix-ey underpinning and all the productivity software. I think the trickel down theory is a bit more significant, cuase there are a lot of fence-sitters out there who own iPods now....and it's a snowball imo.

Getting Wintel journalists on board is key. Thats why Jobs keeps mentioning that PCWorld gives top honors to the Mac. Having Wintel journalists explain the advantage of MacOSX in wintel language to wintel geeks is important.

The macmini gives a relitavely cheap reason to try OSX. But having hardware capable of running both Windows and MacOSX, is the next step to pushing into Windows dominated territory imo.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Thirdly, games. If Apple got the gaming market, alone, that would boost their marketshare dramatically. At their current rate, they'll never have it.

And what do you reckon they could do to get the gaming market? Buy up all the game companies and cut support for Windows?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Apple needs to write Access for Mac, and have it fully compatible with PeeCee versions.

But most "I.T." departments have PeeCee techs, not Computer techs. They just do Windows. The few LINUX geeks would probably like the Apple but you still have to deal with the multitude of PC software makers who make their livings writing stuff that FIXES WINDOWS who would be out of a job.

What about Filemaker? It is available for both platforms...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

A large part of the problem is ignorance, and is the fault of the upper-echelon of geeks. Many very intelligent, very computer literate people that I know (mostly programmers, infact) still think that OS X is the same as OS 9 and even 8, and hasn't changed since they were in high school. These people don't know that it's got a Unix backbone, or anything like that.

These people have massive influence; they build PCs for their friends and family, and act as tech support. If these people were using Macs, and supplying Macs to people instead... but they don't, because they don't know. Apple needs to advertise not just to beginners with ads stating simplicity, but also to 'geeks' with ads telling of its power.

What about the whole notion of buying a computer that runs the same OS as what you have at work, since this is what you're used to, and therefore will require the fewest pains to operate? This population is very significant too. Many don't have access to a geek to help them with computer problems.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And what do you reckon they could do to get the gaming market? Buy up all the game companies and cut support for Windows?

I don't think they'll ever get the gaming market. Current Mac developers don't emphasise cross-platform networking, the hardware is too expensive, software often un-optimised, shitty ports, that are late to boot.

My cheap PC runs more games, faster, than even the fastest Mac available.

[Cipher13]

Wow, dp.

[EFFENDI]

I agree with a lot of what is being tossed around here.

Namely, that Apple needs to target the geek market. Not necessarily gamers (thats a completely different market in my opinion) but the "spec-oriented, low-budget dweebs". Getting their products (software and hardware) out there, into the hands of PC users is the only way to gain more market share, and take down Windows. Geeks gravitate towards anything that is cutting-edge, and especially anything that is free. Distributing OSX x86 via download, be it via a BitTorrent (viral marketing), or direct-download would be an awesome approach to this. Micro$oft has done this in the past, and the programs have been very succesful for the most part.

Most of us PC users are using PCs because they are cheap. If Apple started to support PC hardware, they might lose out on some profits on their own hardware, but they would gain a much larger market share. Whether or not that is something Apple wants to do, I have no clue. If their goal is to convert PC users to Apple hardware, its going to be a much more difficult battle.

Now I personally think Apple builds some awesome hardware (and right now I am not a Mac user), but their systems are too expensive for the typical PC geek. The problem I have, is that I can build a dual-core Intel system, that will at least come close in performance to a DP 2.5GHz PowerMac, but the cost for the PC would be half the cost of a PowerMac. Only then though, you don't have the benefit of the operating system. The only real solution as a consumer is to just swallow the lump in your throat and buy the PowerMac. Or again, buy Apple hardware, a Mac Mini, to run a superior OS on inferior hardware. Apple is really good at limiting options and flexibility when it comes to purchase time. So Apple really only has two choices, to either offer similarly spec'd Apple machines as PCs at equal or lesser cost to the consumer, or to distribute OSX for PC via a free download, and once the core market has had some time to play around with it, sell OSX licenses to PC users, and offer support to that market. Either way, I am sure Apple has its own opinions about this, and they clearly want to contol their potential market in any way possible, by limiting the consumers options, and increasing Apple's. Apple is no different than any other company, at least the way things are right now...

Think Different?? no, Think Apple.

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I would go with the prior. Geeks, are usually tied to games, and none of them are gonna want to spend extra to get the luxury of using OSX. The developer geeks have linux...and theyare gravitating towards the Mac cuase of the unix-ey underpinning and all the productivity software. I think the trickel down theory is a bit more significant, cuase there are a lot of fence-sitters out there who own iPods now....and it's a snowball imo.

Getting Wintel journalists on board is key. Thats why Jobs keeps mentioning that PCWorld gives top honors to the Mac. Having Wintel journalists explain the advantage of MacOSX in wintel language to wintel geeks is important.

The macmini gives a relitavely cheap reason to try OSX. But having hardware capable of running both Windows and MacOSX, is the next step to pushing into Windows dominated territory imo.

The only problem is that the MacMini is a worthless machine, from the PC geek's standpoint (mine). Yes, its cheap, but its also underpowered. Start upgrading it and you have spent close to $1000.00, and you can build a much more capable PC (of course without OSX) for less money. Its a hard decision to make, when your only real option is to buy inferior hardware for a superior OS.... is it worth it??

All I know is that I want OSX, whether or not its on a PC or a Mac, it had better be reasonable priced and well-performing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by EFFENDI

I agree with a lot of what is being tossed around here.

Namely, that Apple needs to target the geek market. Not necessarily gamers (thats a completely different market in my opinion) but the "spec-oriented, low-budget dweebs". Getting their products (software and hardware) out there, into the hands of PC users is the only way to gain more market share, and take down Windows. Geeks gravitate towards anything that is cutting-edge, and especially anything that is free. Distributing OSX x86 via download, be it via a BitTorrent (viral marketing), or direct-download would be an awesome approach to this. Micro$oft has done this in the past, and the programs have been very succesful for the most part.

Most of us PC users are using PCs because they are cheap. If Apple started to support PC hardware, they might lose out on some profits on their own hardware, but they would gain a much larger market share. Whether or not that is something Apple wants to do, I have no clue. If their goal is to convert PC users to Apple hardware, its going to be a much more difficult battle.

Now I personally think Apple builds some awesome hardware (and right now I am not a Mac user), but their systems are too expensive for the typical PC geek. The problem I have, is that I can build a dual-core Intel system, that will at least come close in performance to a DP 2.5GHz PowerMac, but the cost for the PC would be half the cost of a PowerMac. Only then though, you don't have the benefit of the operating system. The only real solution as a consumer is to just swallow the lump in your throat and buy the PowerMac. Or again, buy Apple hardware, a Mac Mini, to run a superior OS on inferior hardware. Apple is really good at limiting options and flexibility when it comes to purchase time. So Apple really only has two choices, to either offer similarly spec'd Apple machines as PCs at equal or lesser cost to the consumer, or to distribute OSX for PC via a free download, and once the core market has had some time to play around with it, sell OSX licenses to PC users, and offer support to that market. Either way, I am sure Apple has its own opinions about this, and they clearly want to contol their potential market in any way possible, by limiting the consumers options, and increasing Apple's. Apple is no different than any other company, at least the way things are right now...

Think Different?? no, Think Apple.

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

The spec-oriented, low budget dweebs are a microscopic percentage of the overall population. The people who are concerned with squeezing out more clock cycles are (or, if not, should be) a small percentage of the overall population. Any computer you can buy new today has enough speed for well over 90% of the population of users who check email, browse websites, and type stuff. The largest population of people who are affected by computer performance are gamers, the percentage of active gamers on the Mac is probably nearly completely insignificant.

There is a huge disconnect between the geek population and regular users. I don't buy the idea that geeks are able to fathom the needs of ordinary users in order for there to be an identifiable trickle-down effect.

I've been a Mac user for years, and I remember countless people saying "if only Apple produced a headless Mac under $500, they would absolutely fly off the shelves". Well, they did, and it has only been a moderate success.

I think it is very easy for us geeks to become disconnected with the overall population of ordinary computer users.

[itistoday]

I don't want every other **** to have a Mac. I like it just the way it is. Maybe 10% but not anymore.

[phantomdragonz]

I really hope that I will be able to build my own PC and run BOTH systems on it, I would primarily use OSX, but when I want to play BF2, or some game I can do that... but mostly because it would be cheaper!

and after awhile the game designers will just make it for OSX, so we would get a superior operating system, and the number one reason people buy pc's (under cheapness)


Cheap
Compatible
USEFUL!

Zach

[Salty]

I don't think I'd want Apple to have anything more than 20% market share... if Apple ever became dominant... I think Steve's head might just crush the rest of the world...

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

The spec-oriented, low budget dweebs are a microscopic percentage of the overall population. The people who are concerned with squeezing out more clock cycles are (or, if not, should be) a small percentage of the overall population. Any computer you can buy new today has enough speed for well over 90% of the population of users who check email, browse websites, and type stuff. The largest population of people who are affected by computer performance are gamers, the percentage of active gamers on the Mac is probably nearly completely insignificant.

There is a huge disconnect between the geek population and regular users. I don't buy the idea that geeks are able to fathom the needs of ordinary users in order for there to be an identifiable trickle-down effect.

I've been a Mac user for years, and I remember countless people saying "if only Apple produced a headless Mac under $500, they would absolutely fly off the shelves". Well, they did, and it has only been a moderate success.

I think it is very easy for us geeks to become disconnected with the overall population of ordinary computer users.

Well I agree with you that its a small percentage, but nonetheless Apple still needs to address this market. I'm not saying it should change its entire advertising and marketing campaign direction, but at least acknowledge this group, and cater to it. I firmly believe that the trickle-down effect is a reality. Geeks are the technology elite, they are the ones that everyone looks to for tech advice. And that is where your argument is flawed. The tech geek (and I'm not necessarily making a generalization here, but) always has the latest hardware, the fastest PC, the newest cellphone. Its a common misconception that the reference "geek" has a connotation with an antisocial personality. Geeks are not out of touch with reality. In most circles its the PC geek who tells the parents what they should buy, what the grandparents should buy, what their friends parents should buy, etc. Its the geek who all the friends call on for tech support, to install that new card, etc. The modern PC geek isnt disconnected from society, nor do they misunderstand other computer user's needs. I think if anyone DOES understand technology and the way its marketed, it IS the geeks. It is the ones using computers. Apple seems to have forgotten about this group, and don't realize how much influence they actually do have. These geeks are the ones writing tech journalism, doing tech podcasts, magazines, etc. Apple needs to do something about it.

And yes, of course the geeks want cheap Macs, because we are used to cheap PCs. But we dont want sacrifice any performance. Even for $500, you can build a very capable Windows system, why should Apple be any different? Why should they release substandard hardware just so Windows users can have a taste (albeit one that leaves a bad flavor) of OSX. So that Apples can stay in their niche market? Because the demand for their operating system and/or hardware is high? I don't understand why it is the way it is, all I know that if Apple is to successfully survive this transition to Intel processors, it better come up with something that makes us geeks happy quickly.

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by Salty

I don't think I'd want Apple to have anything more than 20% market share... if Apple ever became dominant... I think Steve's head might just crush the rest of the world...

Anything is possible. Having a smaller market share means they can develop products that target specific groups of computer users, so why have they ignored PC geeks? Selling PowerMacs to production houses earns Apple a lot of money, but how many studio heads do you know of that reccomend Macs to their friends and family? I've never heard George Lucas talk about his renderfarm publically....

If I was in Steve Jobs' position, I would not be happy with where Apple is at right now. Yes, they are successful, but they can be MORE successful if they make the right moves.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

I don't think I'd want Apple to have anything more than 20% market share... if Apple ever became dominant... I think Steve's head might just crush the rest of the world...

I see you're on a first name basis with "Steve"?


P.S. Steve who?

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I don't want every other **** to have a Mac. I like it just the way it is. Maybe 10% but not anymore.

And its just that attitude that the "Mac elitists" have that will always leave Apple as a second-rate computer company in the eyes of all the Windows users, however wrong or right they are....

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I see you're on a first name basis with "Steve"?


P.S. Steve who?

Might want to take a gander at this here link: http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html

Again, sorry to those of you who find what I have posted offensive, but I am just really pissed off that Apple has neglected us PC geeks.