Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
My dad is a creative in advertising, so he tends to prefer Macs for their superior editing capabilities when it comes to multimedia. The account guys always preferred PCs. They tend to be using the new Intel Macs now, though.
I started using PCs when I was in middle school because the school district was so dependent on them that my family got one so I could do my homework. Until then, I was using a 1995 Macintosh Performa operating on an early Mac OS. To this day, that computer still operates. Since then, I've had an HP fail due to virus vulnerabilities despite having paid antivirus protection, a Dell fail due to faulty hard drive components, and my roommate's Toshiba fail due to faulty hardware. I'm currently using my MacBook. My iBook is at my parents' house, still working without fail for its 3rd year.
In my experience, the Mac is superior. I have found it very functional for regular use and not nearly as prone to failure due to software issues, including security vulnerabilities. If Microsoft were nearly as protective as Apple when it comes to software issues, I'm sure viruses would be less prevalent in PCs, but that would not fix the fact that PCs tend to have inferior hardware.
|
Computers don't fail because of Viruses, well at least
extremely rarely. Maybe your computer needed to be reformatted but that doesn't mean your computer "failed". I can't argue with anecdotal evidence other than to offer my own where an old roommate had to repeatedly send his Macbook back to apple (even after they instructed him to reformat it) to get repaired. They eventually had to send him a whole new laptop.
And I'm sorry to say but Apple is pathetic when it comes to patching vulnerabilties. And they've got more vulnerabilities in the first place.
Here's a recent example where Apple was far behind the pack in fixing a publicly known vulnerability.
Here's an overall comparison of the two companies. I've seen many others (usually by way of Slashdot) but that's what came up in a google.
If the market share were swapped between Apple and Microsoft, Apple would be having the same "problems" that Windows has and Microsoft would be basking in the sunshine as Apple has been able to do. Like I said before, why would a malware author go after 7% of the market when he can go after 90%? It's much more efficient to go after that one massive block.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
Basically, my big argument is that you will always be your own best advocate. Apple will support Apple products better than non-Apple companies. Inasmuch, Microsoft ignored this when it allowed for Windows to be placed on non-Microsoft products.
Think about it in another way. GM makes cars using a lot of parts. No steering wheel manufacturer is complaining that GM doesn't use their steering wheel or offer it as an option because they have no right to do so. GM never let them have a role in building steering wheels. If GM had done so in the past, GM would have given those companies a precedent and a dependency on GM.
Microsoft has created companies that are dependent on their products. For example, Dell cannot sell PCs without the Windows operating system. Apple, however, has never allowed its operating system to sell on non-Apple products. As a result, Apple has a legal monopoly on its operating system. Apple also maintains very carefully placed controls on its products being sold by retailers. Microsoft has not protected its product by forcing it to be sold with specific hardware. As a result, Microsoft has doomed its product to mediocrity while Apple controls the standard of its product and its brand by carefully controlling its sales.
That sounds like a monopoly. It's not because you don't have to buy Apple products. In fact, a lot of people don't, and they are happy people, even though their computers are inferior.  No one complains that many of the products at Wal-Mart are oftentimes only sold at Wal-Mart or that the Camaro is only sold at GM sales locations. Without the type of control that Apple has, its products will not have good quality.
That is why Apple will not let anyone run its operating system on anything else. Apple works to make its prices competitive, but people consistently know that Apples cost more. If the Apple OS were suddenly available in a cheap format, Apple would no longer be responsible for the quality of the product that effectively represents Apple.
In other words, Microsoft has allowed some crappy brands to slap a good system in a bad product. Having witnessed this, why would Apple do the same thing? It would be incredibly stupid to make that business decision because Apple will then have to try to build an operating system to operate under conditions that Apple no longer controls. If Apple can take responsibility for making sure that the hard drive is big enough, that the motherboard lasts long enough, that the camera works, that the speakers are loud enough, that the battery lasts long enough, and that the computer is attractive enough, then Apple can sell its products. If Apple loses that advantage, then someone will cheapen the Apple name.
Apple is using a business strategy to sell its products. That strategy works. This is evident in the obvious fact that Apple still exists and makes money. Why should it change? |
The GM analogy doesn't work. Sorry, it's just not at all similar. Your steering wheel is more like an embedded USB controller than it is the OS. GM doesn't bother advertising who makes the steering wheel just as noone gives a crap who makes the USB controller in a Dell PC. And in this analogy, Dell = your dealer. And as we've seen, dealers can give GM a bad name even though it's not GMs fault just like OEMs can do the same to MS.
I completely understand why Apple does what it does. BUT they and their fanboys continue to sling mud about things that just don't make sense like saying other hardware is inferior. It's just not. And making fun of driver support is just absurd considering the lack of driver support in OSX. Microsoft certainly recognizes some of the problems they have with branding and support. That's why they created the whole "Vista Ready"/"Vista Capable" thing (which is a mess in itself because of Intel).
And Apple did at one point allow other companies to make clones. They just killed the licensing for them and got away with it. This relationship is much like GM and their dealers. Apple was able to can the contracts much like Chrysler and GM are doing now (although Apple wasn't under bankruptcy protection).
I'm not really questioning these decisions that Apple has done but just the arguments people make. If OSX was such a great OS, it wouldn't matter what hardware was running on it. It should be able to compete with windows on an even playing field. But it can't. Shoot, it can't even compete with Windows now (90% vs 7%)..