[besson3c]

I've been finding Apple's strategies lately to be truly bizarre, and I have a hard time seeing how they can work in Apple's favor.

Yes, Apple's market share has been growing, but I think this is happening in spite of some of the decisions they have been making lately, not because of these decisions.

Apple has been making gestures at wanting to grow their market share. We've seen this with Boot Camp, with iWork, with Safari Windows, and other attempts Apple has been making to reach out to new markets. However, Apple is still the small guy in the market and seems to forget this. In order to really grow the Mac, it would be in their best interest to try to penetrate as many new and existing markets as possible to get Apple's products out there and in mainstream usage, just like the iPod and iPhone.

In order to really achieve this level of market penetration, they need to focus on choice and interoperability, not simply bait, switch, and then start charging. This is what Microsoft does. This is what CDDB/Gracenote did, this is what you can do when you have a monopoly in a market. Apple does not monopolize the desktop space, as a whole.

Instead of starting a free service in iTools, and then later charging for it, tying in their own products to only work with .Mac, and barely keeping .Mac competitive, why not allow the iLife apps to work with any server seamlessly - treat them as equal citizens? Think about the sort of penetration they would reach if every hosting provider advertised interoperability with iWeb, iMovie, Backup, Time Machine, and all of the other apps Apple provides, provided how-to guides, and all that was required was... a Mac. There are a gazillion hosting providers in the world, and with things like network backup, content sharing, and all of these other web services really hitting critical mass, Apple would really become well known if they didn't limit their audience to .Mac subscribers. Apple probably only makes enough from .Mac to buy them a bag of donuts anyway....

What's weird is that this sort of thing is so inconsistent. Apple's new version of iCal will work with their open source calendar server that will run on a variety of platforms. Why are they doing this with only iCal, and how long will they continue to do this? The other thing Apple needs if they wish to really penetrate new markets is offering something dependable. Why would a hosting provider invest into something like calendar server if there was no real indication as to how long this service will be free (without requiring a license fee), and what Apple's developer relationships will be like with the rest of the world (which also seem skitzo)?

Why does iChat only work with AIM? Why is iMovie 08 far less useful, and now showing strong indications that Apple wants customers to upgrade to Final Cut Express?

I'm sure others can cite similar examples, but my main point is this:

- if you want to expand your market share, make consistent attempts to penetrate new markets, and emphasize interoperability and choice rather than trying to be something you are not. Apple is simply not big enough to play the lock-in game as much as they try to do.

- if you want to remain a niche market player, fine, but what's with all of these gestures and half attempts? What are you Apple? Make up your mind...

I'm not suggesting that everything Apple offers should be free, far from it, but I've always been under the impression that .Mac, iLife, and pretty much all software Apple develops is a catalyst to sell Macs. Rather, it seems like Apple is trying to make as much money as possible with selling these products rather than taking into the account the larger picture of trying to sell more Macs and get the Mac into new markets. Really.. how much are they going to make in getting people to upgrade to Final Cut Express compared to the potential to sell new Macs because iMovie 08 is the bomb?

It's just all rather strange to me, is all. With the crippled video card in the new iMac (making the machine much less attractive to Windows gamers - exactly the market they should be going after to expand themselves, IMHO) and the release of iLife 08 getting such mixed reviews, it seems like we're seeing a lot more "WTF?!" being expressed here, rightfully so.

Does any of this resonate?

[TETENAL]

Not that iTools thing again. That is like 10 years ago.

iChat works with AIM because they made a deal with AOL. A deal Microsoft might not be willing to make with Apple or vice versa. We don't know, but it's not simply adding a few lines of code to iChat. Apple can not hack into other services' servers like open source clients can. iChat also works Google Talk and Jabber in general. So if you log into a Jabber server with an MSN-transport you can chat with MSN people just fine in iChat. That's what I do.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does any of this resonate?

It really would...if Apple's profits and sales weren't going up and up and up. I'm thinking they are redefining themselves and you don't like it. Fair enough. But $ is king.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

iChat works with AIM because they made a deal with AOL. A deal Microsoft might not be willing to make with Apple or vice versa. We don't know, but it's not simply adding a few lines of code to iChat. Apple can not hack into other services' servers like open source clients can. iChat also works Google Talk and Jabber in general. So if you log into a Jabber server with an MSN-transport you can chat with MSN people just fine in iChat. That's what I do.

We could get into this, but I'd rather not pick apart my examples. This always turns into throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and in this case I don't care so much about the bathwater

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

It really would...if Apple's profits and sales weren't going up and up and up. I'm thinking they are redefining themselves and you don't like it. Fair enough. But $ is king.

How would you characterize Apple's redefinition of themselves? That's exactly what I'm struggling with.

[MacosNerd]

If you're unhappy with iLife and .mac I suggest you don't use them. You seem more apt at making long threads complaining about things.

You see if you use logic, you'd notice that posting all of this stuff does absolutely nothing but you seem driven by an irrational behavior to knock anything coming from apple. *cough* safari, iLife, .mac *cough* it is almost like a religious fervor for you to keep complaining on things that you cannot change, that and posting about selling your stool samples.

edit: I forgot too mention, Apple is just a company trying to make a profit and they seem to be doing pretty well with their focus and direction.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In order to really grow the Mac, it would be in their best interest to try to penetrate as many new and existing markets as possible to get Apple's products out there and in mainstream usage, just like the iPod and iPhone.

Apple has always gone for quality over quantity, and it seems to have served them well. They'll enter a new market when they feel they have a product that will work well in that market. There are many markets that Apple obviously doesn't want to get into, and just suddenly entering every desirable market with an Apple-quality product is easier said than done.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Instead of starting a free service in iTools, and then later charging for it, tying in their own products to only work with .Mac, and barely keeping .Mac competitive, why not allow the iLife apps to work with any server seamlessly - treat them as equal citizens?

Work with any server seemlessly? I guess maybe. It's taken MovableType a long time to get even close to that, and they're just putting out some freaking server-side blog software.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would a hosting provider invest into something like calendar server if there was no real indication as to how long this service will be free (without requiring a license fee), and what Apple's developer relationships will be like with the rest of the world (which also seem skitzo)?

Is there something unclear about the Apache license? Will they object to Apache on the same grounds?

Anyway, Apple is doing better than anyone else in the industry right now. I don't feel like I'm in a position to lecture them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

If you're unhappy with iLife and .mac I suggest you don't use them. You seem more apt at making long threads complaining about things.

You see if you use logic, you'd notice that posting all of this stuff does absolutely nothing but you seem driven by an irrational behavior to knock anything coming from apple. *cough* safari, iLife, .mac *cough* it is almost like a religious fervor for you to keep complaining on things that you cannot change, that and posting about selling your stool samples.

There is no need to be reactionary about something which hints of Apple criticism to you. I don't care about iLife and .Mac, Apple can do with them what they want, it affects me personally extremely minimally. I'm trying to engage in a broader, more intellectual discussion here. There is no religion going on here, although there ought to be religious groups that peddle my stool samples.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Work with any server seemlessly? I guess maybe. It's taken MovableType a long time to get even close to that, and they're just putting out some freaking server-side blog software.

I'm not even asking Apple to come up with all of these export/format conversion options. It seems like it would take such little effort to allow you to enter your own WebDAV server info into the Finder prefs to use in place of the iDisk (although granted, mounting WebDAV shares is not all that difficult), or a place in iWeb to specify your server information so that you can publish your website to another server over AFP/FTP/SFTP/WebDAV, or a place in iPhoto/iMovie to allow the same, etc. Then, all of the hosting providers can advertise this sort of integration and expand upon Apple's mind share with their iLife product line.

This is just one example of where Apple could be a little more strategically inclusive, just working off the top of my head...

Is there something unclear about the Apache license? Will they object to Apache on the same grounds?

What if Apple decides that they are going to make the product proprietary? It is still their property, regardless of the license attached to it, right?

Anyway, Apple is doing better than anyone else in the industry right now. I don't feel like I'm in a position to lecture them.

This is true, I just wish I understood what they are trying to do. This is not as much a call for change as it is just trying to get a handle on their strategies and goals these days. You yourself were confused about why Apple put in such a weak video card into the new iMac, right? This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about here...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

But $ is king.

But not at 'NN. $ is banninated.

-t

[Big Mac]

1. Most of the issues you raise pertain to Apple's consumer offerings - iLife, .Mac, iChat and the like. And just as you said you're not in the iLife market, Apple knows that to be the case and isn't trying to appeal to you - the hardcore nerd type. Apple is trying to appeal to the neophyte and possibly the entry-level prosumer who want solutions that simply get the jobs they usually wish to do done with minimal fuss. Now Apple does straddle the fence a bit between catering to newbs versus catering to prosumers with its consumer software. Final Cut Express didn't exist until Apple realized there was a market between iMovie and FCP. Now it appears iMovie was dumbed down to be more newb friendly, yet Apple came to quickly regret that decision. As we both agree, iLife isn't for you. If iLife were made for the nerds, it wouldn't make sense to market it to consumers anymore.

2. You recognize Boot Camp and Safari for Windows as positive steps toward greater marketshare. Boot Camp certainly is, but it's not all that user friendly as of now - at least the description of the process isn't. Perhaps that's part of the reason why you like it - because it doesn't provide much abstraction from the actual crappy ins and outs of true Windows installations. If Apple were to sanitize the process in the future so that Windows compatibility could be gained more or less with one mouse click in OS X, there's a good chance you would be angry because Apple had eliminated the configuration options you enjoyed back when you had to install Windows manually. Yet, consumers would like it a whole lot better.

3. iTools -> .Mac is almost ancient history. it's clear that Apple couldn't stomach providing those free services. The bait and switch took place years ago; it's time to move on. Now .Mac isn't for you because it's a limited consumer-oriented platform, but it works for enough of its target market that Apple still can justify the cost of running (and even upgrading) the package.

4. You ask why Apple just can't make iLife completely Internet standards compliant, so that iLife could be used seamlessly with most any supported server type on the planet. To that I say, I think you think too highly of Apple's capabilities. As another poster said, pure Internet software companies cannot yet achieve anything close to what you're suggesting iLife should be able to do. And even if Apple had the resources to expend on extending iLife's feature set in that direction (a gigantic if), what would Apple get in return? Cancellations in the droves of .Mac? Apple isn't a charitable organization, even though we treat it at times like a religious entity. It's a for-profit, publicly traded, closed-source (for the most part) computer company that has to grow its be profitable to be healthy. The path you're suggestion for iLife eliminates most of the truly compelling reasons to pay for a .Mac account.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you characterize Apple's redefinition of themselves? That's exactly what I'm struggling with.

Market Leader.

[PaperNotes]

Yes, Apple's market share has been growing, but I think this is happening in spite of some of the decisions they have been making lately, not because of these decisions.

That is a keeper. We'll have to give credit for Apple's growth to the shakey economy and the failure of sub-prime mortgage market.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Market Leader.

What good is this implicit understanding if they don't have the customers to lead?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That is a keeper. We'll have to give credit for Apple's growth to the shakey economy and the failure of sub-prime mortgage market.

There are lots of reasons why Apple's market has been growing. They are making good products, OS X is good, hardware is good, iPod halo, Windows implosion, etc. They have an excellent opportunity here, but it seems like on some days they are only in about third gear as far as expanding their market share goes.

The most recent ammo to add to my argument is the video card in the new iMac thing (although this is not something I personally feel passionate about since I'm not a gamer).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Most of the issues you raise pertain to Apple's consumer offerings - iLife, .Mac, iChat and the like. And just as you said you're not in the iLife market, Apple knows that to be the case and isn't trying to appeal to you - the hardcore nerd type. Apple is trying to appeal to the neophyte and possibly the entry-level prosumer who want solutions that simply get the jobs they usually wish to do done with minimal fuss. Now Apple does straddle the fence a bit between catering to newbs versus catering to prosumers with its consumer software. Final Cut Express didn't exist until Apple realized there was a market between iMovie and FCP. Now it appears iMovie was dumbed down to be more newb friendly, yet Apple came to quickly regret that decision. As we both agree, iLife isn't for you. If iLife were made for the nerds, it wouldn't make sense to market it to consumers anymore.

I fully understand the demographic Apple is targeting here. I'm not sure what this has to do with my original post though.

2. You recognize Boot Camp and Safari for Windows as positive steps toward greater marketshare. Boot Camp certainly is, but it's not all that user friendly as of now - at least the description of the process isn't. Perhaps that's part of the reason why you like it - because it doesn't provide much abstraction from the actual crappy ins and outs of true Windows installations. If Apple were to sanitize the process in the future so that Windows compatibility could be gained more or less with one mouse click in OS X, there's a good chance you would be angry because Apple had eliminated the configuration options you enjoyed back when you had to install Windows manually. Yet, consumers would like it a whole lot better.

I'm not sure how this relates either...

4. You ask why Apple just can't make iLife completely Internet standards compliant, so that iLife could be used seamlessly with most any supported server type on the planet. To that I say, I think you think too highly of Apple's capabilities. As another poster said, pure Internet software companies cannot yet achieve anything close to what you're suggesting iLife should be able to do. And even if Apple had the resources to expend on extending iLife's feature set in that direction (a gigantic if), what would Apple get in return? Cancellations in the droves of .Mac? Apple isn't a charitable organization, even though we treat it at times like a religious entity. It's a for-profit, publicly traded, closed-source (for the most part) computer company that has to grow its be profitable to be healthy. The path you're suggestion for iLife eliminates most of the truly compelling reasons to pay for a .Mac account.

This is BS, plain and simple, no offense...

It would be absolutely *trivial* for Apple to add in iWeb publishing to another server support, this protocol (WebDAV) has been established for years and iCal already does this. It would be absolutely trivial to do similar things with the other iLife apps to work on multiple hosts. I can't think of one real technical obstacle.

As far as the charitable organization thing, this is small minded. Apple probably makes a very small percentage of their money from .Mac. They stand to make a whole *lot* more money in attracting new people to the platform by getting free advertising through any number of hosting platforms out there. If they were able to attract only a small number of new Mac users this way, if you consider the brand loyalty Apple demands and the fact that it is likely these customers would remain Apple customers for life, this is huge.

This is what this is about.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm trying to engage in a broader, more intellectual discussion here.

Lord help the internets.

[besson3c]

PaperNotes: do you have anything substantive to say? K.. thanks!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

PaperNotes: do you have anything substantive to say? K.. thanks!

ah hahahahaha

Coming from you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

ah hahahahaha

Coming from you?

Are we supposed to go back and forth in debate now? When I talk about computers here, I'm serious. This is pretty consistent.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are we supposed to go back and forth in debate now? When I talk about computers here, I'm serious. This is pretty consistent.

Very consistent. It's become a bore reading you consistently and daily post the same opinions with minor variations that the Mac platform is a half arsed platform and we would all be better off with Linux. For a person who claims to be maintaining some massive network business with dozens of servers you seem to spend more time here regurgitating the same thing instead of doing your job. Just shows how productive Linux users are with their great software.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Very consistent. It's become a bore reading you consistently and daily post the same opinions with minor variations that the Mac platform is a half arsed platform and we would all be better off with Linux. For a person who claims to be maintaining some massive network business with dozens of servers you seem to spend more time here regurgitating the same thing instead of doing your job. Just shows how productive Linux users are with their great software.

If it leaves him that much extra free time, it sounds like he's quite productive indeed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Very consistent. It's become a bore reading you consistently and daily post the same opinions with minor variations that the Mac platform is a half arsed platform and we would all be better off with Linux. For a person who claims to be maintaining some massive network business with dozens of servers you seem to spend more time here regurgitating the same thing instead of doing your job. Just shows how productive Linux users are with their great software.

Look, I'm a Mac user and have been for years. I have to live between Mac and open source/Linux worlds (and, BTW, if you really knew me, you'd know that I'm much more of an open source advocate than a Linux advocate specifically... I'm also a fan of FreeBSD). I feel like I have a unique and valid perspective, and am sometimes a lone voice here.

I appreciate many things about the Mac, and have for years. However, I'm also growing to appreciate many things about the capabilities of open source software, open protocols, and the OSS community, many of these things are things we've discussed in the past. I feel that not many Mac users really understand the power of the open source movement and the options that are available, since many users equate what they see in a GUI to the quality of the tool, and like many of us know, many open source tools are not GUI-focussed.

Open source software is vital to Apple's growth in areas where it has typically not been a significant presence. Is open source software flawless? Of course not... Are there tradeoffs to the bewildering array of choice and sometimes lack of quality? Of course. However, if you look at all of the innovation going on in computing *as a whole* (i.e. not just content creation and the things the Mac is good at), the most innovation is coming from open source software as a whole. This is precisely what I think many Mac users don't comprehend, and in sort of dismissing and blowing off this community, they are only potentially hurting the growth of the Mac into new markets.

I welcome debate on anything and everything I've said here. I'm not interested in coming here and simply adding to the Mac religious voice, to me it would be utterly boring to just agree with everybody all the time and applaud every decision Apple makes. I don't feel that excellence can be obtained without challenging the status quo. I feel that many here are too religious about their choice of computers, and I find this perspective utterly ridiculous, just like I feel it is utterly ridiculous to be wrapped up in a single political party. Computers are tools that get stuff done, I don't feel it is wise to get too ideological over one particular profit-driven vendor.

Regarding my work, I do spend far more time on here than I ought to. There are many days when I get in a lot of programming work - either work or non-work related. There are many days where there are plenty of interruptions and it is hard to get too engrossed in work. It is those days in particular where I post here the most frequently. What Chuckit has said is true, we are not constantly putting out major fires, but there are still various interruptions - emails that need to be answered, colleagues that demand attention, etc.

I don't think my skills are anything that special. I don't think I'm some sort of Linux God. There is an endless supply of people that know more stuff than I. I may be somewhat unique to this board, but that isn't saying a whole lot. It makes it fun for me though, and with all due respect, if my challenging your viewpoints offends or upsets you, I suggest you put me on your ignore list, because I'm not interested in simply adding my voice to the chorus. I always attempt to be polite and civil with people as much as I can, as long as they respond in kind. If you feel like I'm being disrespectful in the manner in which I disagree with you, please let me know.

Otherwise, there you have it.

[lpkmckenna]

besson, I agree with some of your complaints:

dotMac is still underwhelming. Flickr and YouTube will host my media for free, and Mozy provides 2GB of free storage for my documents. Free webmail is ubiquitous.

I would have preferred that dotMac provided a tiered service: 1 GB for free, plus free syncing. Want more? Pay for more. But I'm just not gonna pay $99 a year for 10GB of combined email/media/backup/syncing.

iWeb is improved, but the "publish to folder" feature remains retarded. I do like the web snippets, and will probably use them to embed my Flickr pics and YouTube vids.

I can't agree about iChat. While it would be nice to use iChat with any message service, I just use Adium for that. I don't need Apple to reinvent the wheel.

I think Nintendo's Wii has proven that there's more to gaming than super video cards. It's a vain hope to expect better gaming rigs from Apple.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We could get into this, but I'd rather not pick apart my examples.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I welcome debate on anything and everything I've said here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Rephrase: you are welcome to debate my main points, picking apart the seams and nit picking little things is usually pretty boring.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

picking apart the seams and nit picking little things is usually pretty boring.

So is bringing up stuff that was decided over 5 years ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

So is bringing up stuff that was decided over 5 years ago.

Some members have an annoying habit of trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater when something is said that they want to disagree with. Why fixate on that? I'm not fixating on that. I brought it up to paint a context for a much bigger picture thing. Why not fixate on the point I'm trying to make? Whether or not Apple should have started charging for iTools is really not terribly interesting to me, because like you said, it is history.

[TETENAL]

So you don't want to fixate on iChat (that's what you told me), you don't want to fixate on iTools because it's history, you don't want to fixate on the iMacs graphics card because you are not a big gamer, and I guess you wouldn't want to fixate on iLife because the Finder supports WebDav and you could just use "Save" to upload to a random server that supports it.

So you don't want to fixate on any of your examples but only on your general assumption that Apple's strategy is flawed. How would any discussion with you look like if it's not generally agreeing with you? And if no discussion with you is possible if it's not generally agreeing with you, then why post a thread in a discussion forum? Couldn't you just pat your own back and be done with it?

[besson3c]

Is my original topic not interesting? Understandable? Here is another summary of it:

- Apple's strategies seem somewhat random and inconsistent
- Apple doesn't seem interested in the marketing tactic of striving for market penetration

If this is uninteresting to you, for the sake of keeping this thread moving, perhaps we can talk about whatever you want to talk about... I would just prefer it that my original post was at least understood.

If it is and you don't want to address it, what would you prefer to fixate on?

[Brass]

It sure does seem like a very strange feature of a web publishing application which is supposed to be the most simple one out there, that is cannot publish to 99.9% of web sites without the user doing all the uploading manually using 3rd party tools (FTP, rsync, etc). Apple has clearly chosen to make it difficult to use anything other than .Mac in iWeb - otherwise how would they not make it built into iWeb. It would be trivially easy for them to do.

It appears in this case, at least, the OP is correct. Apple is trying to capture and lock in users to .Mac, when they could be chasing the alternative strategy of making their products more appealing to more people. Sure .Mac is appealing to some, but why not cater to the others to whom .Mac has no appeal whatsoever? Running a website is done by novices everywhere, without .Mac. Why would Apple be deliberately making it difficult for them to use iWeb? It must be to try to get them to switch to .Mac, I guess.

[besson3c]

Wasn't the whole purpose of iLife from the get-go to increase Apple's marketshare by driving new users to the platform who are just clamoring to run iLife?

If so, how does what Brass is describing accomplish this? Think about how big it would be if iWeb became a standard web tool that all hosting providers supported and provided documentation on? Non Mac-savvy users would become far more aware of iWeb, it might turn heads more, and in turn provide new customers for Apple. Apply this to the entire iLife suite (with the exception of iCal, for whatever reason this inconsistency exists).

Mind you, in iWeb 1.x you can export your site to an external folder, but if you are going to make it this difficult for people you are really taking the sex appeal out of the product and the demographic it is targeting.

This is what I find bizarre.