Is MacMini the 1step for a turnaround?

[Motegi]

IMO, in order for Apple to compete on a level playing field with M$, they need to allow other vendors to start producing, and selling, OS X compatible PCs.

As you may be aware Apple did open up to third party "mac clone" manufacturers in the mid to late nineties. In fact I had a Umax C600 mac clone at one time. In the end the mac clones really didn't do much to increase market share and the clone manufacturers licenses were gradually phased out.

Perhaps what makes the Mac user experience so simple and clean is the fact that the hardware and OS are so closely integrated and that there are not "too many cooks stirring the pot". Having dozens of different clone manufacturers each wanting to add their own little hardware features/ software extentions will add complexity and confusion.

 

[Jimbo]

Apple doesn't have to compete on level playing ground with MSFT any more than Ferrari has to with the Chevrolet Corvette.

Of course, it's hard to find exact analogies... but even at 2-5% marketshare, Apple is still highly profitable with very happy, satisfied customers and shareholders.

Isn't that what really counts?

-Jim

(a happy Macintosh user for more than 20 years...oh, yeah...never been infected with a virus either)

 

[PHOEN$X]

As you may be aware Apple did open up to third party "mac clone" manufacturers in the mid to late nineties. In fact I had a Umax C600 mac clone at one time. In the end the mac clones really didn't do much to increase market share and the clone manufacturers licenses were gradually phased out.

Yes, I am aware of Apple's brief, but obscure, interlude into the world of hardware licensing. I didn't bother researching why it didn't increase market share for Apple, but it obviously worked for M$. Maybe marketing, or restrictive licensing terms had something to do with it.

Perhaps what makes the Mac user experience so simple and clean is the fact that the hardware and OS are so closely integrated and that there are not "too many cooks stirring the pot". Having dozens of different clone manufacturers each wanting to add their own little hardware features/ software extentions will add complexity and confusion.

Perhaps having control over the entire product does result in a better user experience, however the fact remains that they are still locking a lot of other hardware manufacturers out of the game. The question (as posed by the poll in this thread) is, will this strategy help them break the Windows dominance? I'm thinking no, but feel free to disagree.

even at 2-5% marketshare, Apple is still highly profitable with very happy, satisfied customers and shareholders.

Isn't that what really counts?

Perhaps, but that wasn't the original question posed in the poll.

And, I don't think Bill Gates become the wealthiest person in the world because M$ is unprofitable with very unhappy, unsatisfied customers and shareholders.

(a happy PC user for more than 20 years...oh, yeah...never been infected with a virus either)

 

[Arshad]

Maybe marketing, or restrictive licensing terms had something to do with it.


Actually, it wasn't the clone makers who had the problem with it. They were making money hand over fist -- Apple was the one losing out. They have always been a hybrid hardware/software developer. The clones pushed them into a software only market which did not have the same level of profitability for them.

They could go the MS route and become a largely SW OS provider, but they don't have the sheer number of units out there for this to be viable. The only way this could happen would be if OSX were made to run on x86 HW as well and they shut down their HW side completely. Then of course they'd be directly competing with MS and run into all of the same HW compatibility issues that MS has to solve. It would not be a very good position to be in IMO.

I think their decision to shut down the clone makers was a sound one from their perspective. Customers lost out by having to pay more for their machines, but won by having a company that is still around supporting them. If they had continued down their original path, there would be no Apple today.

 

[paladin]

(a happy PC user for more than 20 years...oh, yeah...never been infected with a virus either)

Well, maybe not 20 years, but i've never had a virus either. its mostly a case of common sense. as long as you stay current with updates and dont download stupid stuff, you wont have a problem​

 

[Jimbo]

I tried the Mac a few times, and each time I went back to my PC. One of the things that bugged me was the single button mouse. I am so used to having two buttons, and also I could not live without the indispensable scroll (now with tilt) wheel.

http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/why_apple_makes_a_one_buttoned_mouse_01280820/
Why Apple Makes a One Buttoned Mouse
Related: Features, PC / Laptop

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Macintosh, but one misconception that has persisted is the myth that Mac’s are incapable of using multi-button mice. And those who know this myth is false still complain about Apple not shipping computers with two button mice. Gear Live cub reporter XIcarus wanted to share a bit of background on what many believe to be Apple’s stubborness to conform.

Apple supports multi-button mice. Right out of the box. Furthermore, this is not a ‘new feature’ of OS X. Support for contextual menus (the primary use for the two button mouse) have been around since OS 8.6, which is now more than seven years old. Let me repeat, Apple supports multi-button mice. Even if you use a one button mouse, you can still access contextual menu through ‘control-clicking’ (Hold down the control key when you click the mouse button).


Now on to the second part.

Although I can envision a day where Apple will ship with a two button mouse, they have really, really, really good reasons for sticking to a one button mouse.

The first reason deals with the technical ability of the average computer user. Having once worked doing technical support, let me explain one very common point of frustration for techs. Here is an example:

Me: Right click on “My Computer”
Caller: Right?
Me: The right mouse button
Caller: Oh, okay...Now there’s a menu.
Me: Select “Manage”
Caller: okay
Me: Double click on ‘Device Manager’
Caller: Left or right click?

I kid you not, ten times a day I would talk to someone who has never right clicked in their life. After they first do it, they will ASK YOU EVERY TIME if they should right click or left click. Now, though we may not be the typical computer user, Apple is always concerned with creating a user experience that is as intuitive as possible. Giving the average person a right mouse button is like giving a bald man a comb.

Secondly, Apple wants all developers to follow their interface guidelines. The reason for this is tied into what I wrote above. If every application can be expected to work the same way, the learning curve for the user is minimized. Apple has gone through great pains and great expense to study human-computer interaction. Because of these studies, one thing Apple insists on is that every feature of an application should be accessible through menu items. It’s great and even encouraged to create additional ways of accessing features, but at a bare minimum, you should be able to reach it from the menu.

To this end, many developers get lazy, and implement something that can only be accomplished through a right mouse click. By shipping their computers with a single mouse button, developers are forced to recognize that cutting corners this way isn’t acceptable. Though developers are free to build things through right mouse clicks, they can’t rely on the capability, and are forced to include another means of accessing it.

The third reason is a bit market driven. Those of us who like multi-button mice really like multi-button mice. To this end, if I were to buy a Dell, or HP, or any other mass market computer, I will get a mouse with two buttons and maybe a scroll wheel. What’s the first thing I do? Throw that mouse out for a four-button, five-button or N-button mouse, because it’s inherently better than the mouse I got.

But I also know that I am in the minority. Most computer users are perfectly happy with the mouse they get. And most of them never touch the right mouse button. So, if I and a small percentage of users will throw away our stock mouse for a customized one, why should Apple even bother to ship one with two buttons? It won’t be good enough for me or you and it only confuses the majority of the computer using market, why bother?

Folks, those are the reasons Apple ships a one-button mouse. Will that change? At some point yeah. But Apple is in no hurry to ship something that they believe no one will use.