Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Krypton · May 18, 2005, 01:09 PM

Rumblings on AppleInsider would suggest that Apple is preparing a Mac advertising programme on the same scale as with the iPod.

Just today I noticed these new additions to the support site, namely Mac and switchers guides of the sort not widely seen since the help files and tutorials that came pre-installed on OS 9 Macs.

What do you think?

Rogue 5 · May 18, 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Krypton

Rumblings on AppleInsider would suggest that Apple is preparing a Mac advertising programme on the same scale as with the iPod.

Just today I noticed these new additions to the support site, namely Mac and switchers guides of the sort not widely seen since the help files and tutorials that came pre-installed on OS 9 Macs.

What do you think?

I think its really about damn time. Macs have been basically un advertised for a long time, yet Dell and MS ads are all over the place. If it wern't for placement in TV and Movies, your average person would think Apple ONLY made iPods anymore.

Eug Wanker · May 18, 2005, 01:34 PM

They'd get more interest if they'd actually support previous OSes properly. The new iMacs aren't even supported on Panther, which is incredibly stupid IMO if they want any sort of business market share. I mean the iMacs came out less than a week after Tiger did, and Apple refuses to support them on Panther.

wdlove · May 18, 2005, 01:37 PM

I have thought this for a long time. Apple needs to be advertising the Mac. The iPod is everywhere, but no Mac.

Krypton · May 18, 2005, 01:38 PM

I agree they don't look very appealing in terms of backwards compatibility with their own hardware + software releases.

Lancer409 · May 18, 2005, 02:25 PM

'bout damn time...

brapper · May 18, 2005, 02:36 PM

more Dr. Malcolm?

alphasubzero949 · May 18, 2005, 02:44 PM

As usual, they probably won't show what it can do. Just cheesy angle shots.

willed · May 18, 2005, 02:51 PM

But then, why would you want to downgrade the OS of your new iMac? Not saying it's good that they don't allow it, I'm just wondering what would be a situation where anyone needed/wanted to do this.

Maybe if you REALLY need to run iCalViewer! (which isn't Tiger compatible yet)

demograph68 · May 18, 2005, 02:55 PM

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

Eug Wanker · 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by willed

But then, why would you want to downgrade the OS of your new iMac? Not saying it's good that they don't allow it, I'm just wondering what would be a situation where anyone needed/wanted to do this.

Maybe if you REALLY need to run iCalViewer! (which isn't Tiger compatible yet)

Business users often buy tens or even hundreds of machines at a time, but often have critical software than has only been validated with certain OSes and OS versions.

I'll give you this scenario:

Print agency XYZ has a hybrid workplace with 50 Macs and 50 PCs. The PCs are running Windows XP SP2, and the Macs are running OS X 10.3.8. They haven't upgraded to either 10.3.9 or Tiger yet, because they break their critical apps/peripherals.

The print agency decides it wants to get 25 more Macs, partially because the Macs are what the employees favour, and partially because they're easier to administer.

Apple releases new 2 GHz 20" iMacs, which are perfect for their usage. However, it can't buy them, because their software doesn't work with Tiger (or even 10.3.9).

So, the company looks at the older iMacs. Unfortunately, they can't get 25 of them from anywhere.

So, the company looks at the Power Mac 1.8. Unfortunately, it costs way too much money: The base iMac 2.0 20" costs $1799, while the equivalent Power Mac 1.8 costs $1903, WITHOUT THE 20" SCREEN.

So, the company finally gives in and buys 25 more PCs with Dell 20" displays, for the same cost of the iMacs.

Apple would have had a nice sale had the new iMacs simply supported 10.3.8. But alas, Apple screwed itself over with its inane policy with regards to even recent OS backwards compatibility. Hell, even 10.3.9 support would be better than no 10.3 support at all.

BTW, I've already seen this happen. A couple of guys setting up labs were getting ready to buy a whole boat load of iMacs, when Apple suddenly released the new iMacs. We end users are happy, but those guys are p!ssed. They can't get enough of the old iMacs anymore, and the new iMacs won't work with their institution's chosen Mac OS X version (10.3.9).

jasonsRX7 · May 18, 2005, 03:34 PM

^^^
What Eug said is true, and it's the main thing I've had concerns about when I've evaluated deploying some Xserve's here at work. When we make a server purchase, we want to know that it'll get X number of years of use without major changes or upgrades. And X is usually more than 2 years. Upgrades are nice, but they can often break things, and reliability is usually of primary concern over the features of the upgrade.

However, with the frequency that Apple releases OS upgrades, and the lack of support they show for a (relatively) young OS after its successor has been released is a bit discouraging. When we make a large business purchase, we'd like to think our OS would get more than 2 years of application upgrades beyond just critical security patches, without being required to take the risks involved with upgrading an otherwise perfectly stable and reliable platform.

I'm not saying it's a deal breaker by any means, I'm just saying that it's a factor that weighs heavily on our purchasing decisions, and rightfully so. I'm also not asking that Apple support their point releases for 10 years, but I think 4 to 5 is certainly a resonable request. It's one argument that usually comes from Microsoft's side of the table, and a hard one to ignore.

spatterson · May 18, 2005, 03:45 PM

I would love to see advertisements be pushed!

James L · May 18, 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

Having to re-engineer the OS constantly for multiple chip architecture would suck up resources at Apple that could be used better elsewhere.

If Apple had to support the far reaching range of hardware available in PC land, you would have a far less stable OS than we currently have. Part of the stability of OSX is the fact that Apple controls both ends, the hardware and the software.

Also, there is often quite better hardware available, for less money, in PC land than in Apple land. People buying the OS to put on their own machines would only cannibalize sales away from Apple.

Finally, licensing out the OS failed miserable 10 years ago (granted, that was on PPC chipsets and not x86 ones), so I don't see it working again anytime soon.

Krypton · May 18, 2005, 05:32 PM

NeXT Step was conceived to run on all architectures, so it wouldn't be impossible. They also ported OS 7 to Intel in the form of the 'Star Trek' project before management killed it.

ManOfSteal · May 18, 2005, 08:14 PM

This will officially® put Microsoft out of business. Finally!

ReggieX · May 18, 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

Oh, god, not this AGAIN.

demograph68 · May 18, 2005, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by ReggieX

Oh, god, not this AGAIN.

Sure it's beating a dead horse but it makes sense to me.

Kerrigan · May 18, 2005, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by brapper

more Dr. Malcolm?

We can but hope not!

macaddict0001 · May 18, 2005, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

No, they make much of the money used to develop the os from hardware sales(hence the price premium, not to mention the inexpensive os) so they would have to lower the price and they would lose hardware sales.

DeathMan · May 19, 2005, 04:46 AM

I sort of like how the Mac community is just under the radar. Yes, Apple is cool, and well known, but the Mac itself is still a little underground. The rebels, and all that.

What do we really have to gain from more marketshare? Maybe better software support. Adobe's apps aren't looking so hot on the PC, so that sort of goes against the marketshare = software support idea. Maybe there will be more titles available, but AFAIC I'm not missing any software. The new consoles are looking sweet, and I have no gaming envy.

What else do we need? I doubt we'll see significant price drops. Video cards might come down a tiny bit, but again, I doubt there will be a substantial change.

euphras · May 19, 2005, 05:07 AM

I think its really about damn time. Macs have been basically un advertised for a long time, yet Dell and MS ads are all over the place. If it wern't for placement in TV and Movies, your average person would think Apple ONLY made iPods anymore.

Agreed. Last time apple advertised Macs in Germany was during the introduction of the original Mac in 1984

demograph68 · May 19, 2005, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

No, they make much of the money used to develop the os from hardware sales(hence the price premium, not to mention the inexpensive os) so they would have to lower the price and they would lose hardware sales.

Frankly, I don't like the hardware. I cannot upgrade **** for one.

Hugi · May 19, 2005, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

Hey, that's brilliant! Why hasnt anyone thought of that before?!

ReggieX · May 19, 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Frankly, I don't like the hardware. I cannot upgrade **** for one.

Then you chose poorly.

Xeo · May 19, 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Would it be easier for Apple to gain more market share if Tiger could be installed on PCs?

If Tiger ran on PCs, I'd have a home-built tower in a heartbeat. I love Apple hardware but when it comes to price/performance, PC parts win.

That said, I'd still have my iBook.

Eug Wanker · May 19, 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by willed

But then, why would you want to downgrade the OS of your new iMac? Not saying it's good that they don't allow it, I'm just wondering what would be a situation where anyone needed/wanted to do this.

Maybe if you REALLY need to run iCalViewer! (which isn't Tiger compatible yet)

This person learned the hard way why it's a big deal.

:XI: · May 19, 2005, 10:10 AM

The Mac OS does run on PCs. Apple Macintosh PCs.

I don't think increased market share will bring prices down. If the market is buying at the price it is, why lower it and reduce profits?

Increased market share will increase profits, increased profits should (should) lead to an increase in development. It could also see more games development on the mac. Which would be nice.

tae667 · May 19, 2005, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by euphras

Agreed. Last time apple advertised Macs in Germany was during the introduction of the original Mac in 1984

Are you sure they haven't advertised lately? I just saw an ad of Mac Mini in Finnish PC-oriented magazine and I haven't seen any Apple ads in this millenium. Apple advertises in Finland so why wouldn't they advertise in Germany?

Apple Pro Underwear · May 19, 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by tae667

Are you sure they haven't advertised lately? I just saw an ad of Mac Mini in Finnish PC-oriented magazine and I haven't seen any Apple ads in this millenium. Apple advertises in Finland so why wouldn't they advertise in Germany?

depends on how they split their managers, budget and how their research dictates.

managers might think finland needs a bigger push. budget may allow for magazine ads in finland but billboards in germany. or research may show germany only responds to tv ads. or a million other reasons.

either way, we'll never know unless we worked for apple's euro marketing dept.