If you think that Apple designs the best products I don't understand why you would need an alternative. Beauty is highly subjective, so it really only matters what you think. I Don't dislike Apple, but I do prefer using a PC. While my primary computer is kind of tacky looking, I also have an Asus eee slate that I believe is designed and built just as well as anything I've used from Apple.
The easiest way to answer your question would be to try out a bunch of computers. If you like using the Mac the best, the answer to your question is "no."
I don't think that's what is being asked, although I totally agree with what you said.
I think also the question and your answer somewhat reduces down what Apple are doing to just producing hardware and software - as if that's all that Apple were about.
No matter how big a player the competitor might be, Apple have got users locked-in without them even feeling it, and other companies have got a very long way to go before they even get close to having that kind of buy-in. Apple would have to have a major major screw up to lose that advantage.
I actually experienced the power of that lock-in recently. I'm writing a technical book on a macbook air. Although it's on OSX 10.6.8 I hadn't upgraded to Lion because I didn't want to lose the support of Rosetta for a couple of programs I still use.
I'd been using Pages to write the book because of it's compatibility with ePub and Amazon, and when Apple released iBooks Author I saw the potential for my book. The problem is that it's Lion only.
Now I have a dilemma, upgrade to Lion and lose Rosetta (and several key coding programs) or just stay where I am and lose iBooks Author.... or buy another Mac. Wow. That is power. Name me another company that has that.
How is that Apple's fault? You'd have exactly the same false dilemma on any system where you wanted to run old and new software that weren't compatible with the same OS version. What if you were on Windows and wanted to run a new app that needed .NET and an old one that only worked on Win9x?
It's a false dilemma anyway, because you've ignored obvious solutions like virtual machines or dual booting. Again, exactly the same options you'd have on Windows, Linux, or whatever.
Was I blaming Apple? No. I was just pointing out that from a consumer perspective, Apple have got all bases covered and every decision is pretty cleverly put together. I admire it, but the questioner seemed not to see it that far hence I made the point.
HNers of course are going to find hacks and work-arounds to my dilemma which is not exactly end-of-the-world anyway.
Honestly my dilemma is a non-issue. As I said above I was making the point from a consumer perspective. I'm too far down the line with the book in this version anyways.
> Now I have a dilemma, upgrade to Lion and lose Rosetta (and several key coding programs) or just stay where I am and lose iBooks Author.... or buy another Mac. Wow. That is power. Name me another company that has that.
Or install the older OS to another partition. Not a hack or a workaround, it's actually what you are supposed to do if you require access to two versions of Mac OS X on the same computer
I really don't think this demonstrates the power of lock in, or anything at all really. Just classic "time marches on" software incompatibility. Not unique to Apple or any other vendor.
Isn't that the whole reason behind the Ultrabook initiative? This way you get a pretty decently designed laptop. For desktops you can get a few cases that can compete with the looks of the Mac Pro, although few of them are as organized on the inside, at least without a bit of work from those assembling them. Not that it matters all that much (and never mind that I still think the G3/G4 plastic cases were nicer).
Regarding OS software, it doesn't look like Apple is even trying very hard anymore, so let's see if things like Ubuntu can catch up. (Personally, the bits of software I like most on my Macbook aren't even from Apple.)
Two totally separate arguments that have no reason to be used for comparison in this context at all. The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it. Saying Apple isn't trying hard on their OS and then stating that the applications you use on your Macbook aren't even from Apple is like saying I drive a Prius but my music CD isn't from Toyota. As if any of that matters or even correlates (it makes no sense whatsoever). I'm really scratching my head on this one...
The OS is separate from the applications in which it runs. Who cares if Apple makes any of the software you choose to install on OS X or not (as a measure of evaluating the OS itself). It doesn't change the fact that you're able to install those applications and they run fine on OS X nor does it in any way actually measure how good or bad OS X is. Arguably Ubuntu probably doesn't make any of the software you choose to install on it either by that very same argument.
I use both Ubuntu and OS X and I'm all for fair evaluation of good and bad of anything (not just OS or software), but when you make a statement like Apple isn't trying very hard and your best argument is completely irrelevant to the argument itself, I can't see the merit.
"The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it."
That's a rather technical view of the situation. The fact is that a lot of applications are only available on one platform, and basically none is available on all. So quite often your choice of OS is determined by the applications you want to run, whether they're games, a certain office suite or nifty productivity apps. This in turn then ties you to hardware, from a very restricted set (Apple) to a little more relaxed one (Windows) to almost anything with transistors (NetBSD).
In addition almost every platform creates its own culture and environment. Linux and the BSDs embody open source software. Microsoft basically is synonymous with office and enterprise. Apple caters to designers and has a pretty thriving shareware culture, with a lot of small utilities due to its history and the fact that it somewhat dominates the laptop space.
So yes, I'd argue that OS, hardware and third-party software are very hard to separate and you have to consider the whole situation when you think about switching. (In my opinion this got quite a bit better within the last decade, though)
In my specific case, while I feel that Apple is neglecting both its OS and its desktop offers, and I think that its competitors are catching up a bit in the OS space, the whole culture/3rd party thing still would play a major role and could prevent me from switching altogether. Just like someone would like to switch to Linux, but if you're working with high-end CAD software all day, that's a bit hard to do. That's probably the far end of the "switching" spectrum, basically prohibiting it, while reliance on neat productivity tools like Alfred, TextExpander and OmniFocus just makes it harder. (And for a lot of people it's not even just the specific apps, but common general qualities, whether that's clean, simple, good looking apps on Macs or being able to configure everything in text on Unices)
I might have stated it a bit awkwardly, and I hope this clears things up.
I think the issue I took with your original statement wasn't the fact that applications are tied to the OS (that certainly wasn't how it came off). In that regard, I do and certainly agree. It was the fact that you claimed most of your applications on OS X were not developed by Apple (which clearly indicates they do run on OS X contrary to any arguments you listed above) and using that as an argument to measure the value of the OS itself (and by association, Apple's work on it). If you re-read what you wrote, you'll clearly see how I came to that conclusion. By that measure, Ubuntu, which you used as an argument for a hopeful OS suffers more than OS X regarding availability of software altogether or the simple fact that they too, like Apple, are not the developers of the software you use outside of the OS (another argument you presented).
I certainly can agree that the OS dictates what is available but certainly there are many ways around this albeit to an extent (virtualization comes to mind) and up until recently with Lion, you couldn't argue it was legal to install OS X on any other OS/VM or even bootcamp-like solutions, but arguably you could with any other OS out there. In this context, OS X actually is more appealing if you weigh the options of availability. Sure, its not perfect that you still have to run multiple OSes but certainly its an option nonetheless, one that weren't genuinely available in any other environment as far as I am aware of even if you could hack your way to make it work illegally.
That said, Apple and OS X are far from perfect and certainly there are a lot more improvements that can be made but I'm not quite sure I agree with you that they're "neglecting" their desktop OS. A lot of changes that came with Lion left people with mix feelings but I find it difficult to believe that that, or any other argument (perhaps I'm missing some) indicates that OS X is being neglected. On the contrary, I think they're striving to continue to innovate on this part. Again, far from perfect but I also personally believe far from being neglected as well.
No, Apple is still super cool. Awesome usability, GUI, on top of super-powerful Unix. Maybe we need an alternative from the Apple of 2-3 years from now, but the Apple of today kicks absolute butt.
Speaking as an engineer-designer: Apple's devices are better designed than a lot of the stuff out there, but they're still not that great. You can kick their asses on design if you actually find a case where there's a sufficient financial incentive to do so.
It's just, it's really hard to make money at scale on physical products. There's not much incentive to complete on this. Plus, many people have been trained to evaluate design quality as "looks like Apple products" ... which some days gets to the point where I just fire-bomb the place and take a vacation in Nepal, Tibet, one of those places with mountains.
Interface design specifically is a case where it often comes down to "stop breaking it" vs. "how do I add more awesome" - people make this horrible unusable goop and think it's good design. The Google refresh? Lord knows how much money they threw at that ... and while the old version wasn't all pretty with colors and gradients everywhere, it had fairly decent usability. The new version is riddled with issues, after putting substantially more effort into making it. WTF?
Thanks guys for the comments. Really appreciate it. And please excuse the lack of asking more precisely, what I meant to ask was if you guys see any chance and need in a new company that produces hardware and software? Of course thats not all Apple is about...after all you might not need a similar company whatsoever. However, currently I don't see any company out there with the potential to come up with a similar set up (hence I totally agree with chris_dcosta and in part with dholowiski).
Direct competition is difficult due to patents among other things. That is very evident in both the desktop OS as well as mobile OS war. Startups are going to have an insanely difficult time trying to get something up without getting sued by dozens of company brewing in this war. And if thats not the issue, certainly licensing fees will be hefty.
But putting all that aside, Apple is great in many ways currently. To do better is insanely difficult in part because no one has a clue what better actually is and hardware is a huge gamble unlike software. This and the above factor makes things difficult out the door. I would certainly love to see another hardware/software company come up to compete, and even one with a more web presence too (something Apple lacks a lot of when you look at companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google), but I'm not sure I see a reason for such a company to exist at the moment.
Most companies exist because there is an inherent problem that can be done better. I'm not sure I have much to complain with the way things are going as I'm sure many others don't either. Most of the complaints, if any, are Apple EULA or their closed ecosystem, not so much about things that are actually wrong with their products to the point where its a huge pain point.
15 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 43.0 ms ] threadThe easiest way to answer your question would be to try out a bunch of computers. If you like using the Mac the best, the answer to your question is "no."
I think also the question and your answer somewhat reduces down what Apple are doing to just producing hardware and software - as if that's all that Apple were about.
No matter how big a player the competitor might be, Apple have got users locked-in without them even feeling it, and other companies have got a very long way to go before they even get close to having that kind of buy-in. Apple would have to have a major major screw up to lose that advantage.
I actually experienced the power of that lock-in recently. I'm writing a technical book on a macbook air. Although it's on OSX 10.6.8 I hadn't upgraded to Lion because I didn't want to lose the support of Rosetta for a couple of programs I still use.
I'd been using Pages to write the book because of it's compatibility with ePub and Amazon, and when Apple released iBooks Author I saw the potential for my book. The problem is that it's Lion only.
Now I have a dilemma, upgrade to Lion and lose Rosetta (and several key coding programs) or just stay where I am and lose iBooks Author.... or buy another Mac. Wow. That is power. Name me another company that has that.
It's a false dilemma anyway, because you've ignored obvious solutions like virtual machines or dual booting. Again, exactly the same options you'd have on Windows, Linux, or whatever.
HNers of course are going to find hacks and work-arounds to my dilemma which is not exactly end-of-the-world anyway.
2. Install and run VirtualBox, and install Lion (approved by Apple EULA).
3. ?????
4. Profit
Or install the older OS to another partition. Not a hack or a workaround, it's actually what you are supposed to do if you require access to two versions of Mac OS X on the same computer
I really don't think this demonstrates the power of lock in, or anything at all really. Just classic "time marches on" software incompatibility. Not unique to Apple or any other vendor.
Regarding OS software, it doesn't look like Apple is even trying very hard anymore, so let's see if things like Ubuntu can catch up. (Personally, the bits of software I like most on my Macbook aren't even from Apple.)
The OS is separate from the applications in which it runs. Who cares if Apple makes any of the software you choose to install on OS X or not (as a measure of evaluating the OS itself). It doesn't change the fact that you're able to install those applications and they run fine on OS X nor does it in any way actually measure how good or bad OS X is. Arguably Ubuntu probably doesn't make any of the software you choose to install on it either by that very same argument.
I use both Ubuntu and OS X and I'm all for fair evaluation of good and bad of anything (not just OS or software), but when you make a statement like Apple isn't trying very hard and your best argument is completely irrelevant to the argument itself, I can't see the merit.
That's a rather technical view of the situation. The fact is that a lot of applications are only available on one platform, and basically none is available on all. So quite often your choice of OS is determined by the applications you want to run, whether they're games, a certain office suite or nifty productivity apps. This in turn then ties you to hardware, from a very restricted set (Apple) to a little more relaxed one (Windows) to almost anything with transistors (NetBSD).
In addition almost every platform creates its own culture and environment. Linux and the BSDs embody open source software. Microsoft basically is synonymous with office and enterprise. Apple caters to designers and has a pretty thriving shareware culture, with a lot of small utilities due to its history and the fact that it somewhat dominates the laptop space.
So yes, I'd argue that OS, hardware and third-party software are very hard to separate and you have to consider the whole situation when you think about switching. (In my opinion this got quite a bit better within the last decade, though)
In my specific case, while I feel that Apple is neglecting both its OS and its desktop offers, and I think that its competitors are catching up a bit in the OS space, the whole culture/3rd party thing still would play a major role and could prevent me from switching altogether. Just like someone would like to switch to Linux, but if you're working with high-end CAD software all day, that's a bit hard to do. That's probably the far end of the "switching" spectrum, basically prohibiting it, while reliance on neat productivity tools like Alfred, TextExpander and OmniFocus just makes it harder. (And for a lot of people it's not even just the specific apps, but common general qualities, whether that's clean, simple, good looking apps on Macs or being able to configure everything in text on Unices)
I might have stated it a bit awkwardly, and I hope this clears things up.
I certainly can agree that the OS dictates what is available but certainly there are many ways around this albeit to an extent (virtualization comes to mind) and up until recently with Lion, you couldn't argue it was legal to install OS X on any other OS/VM or even bootcamp-like solutions, but arguably you could with any other OS out there. In this context, OS X actually is more appealing if you weigh the options of availability. Sure, its not perfect that you still have to run multiple OSes but certainly its an option nonetheless, one that weren't genuinely available in any other environment as far as I am aware of even if you could hack your way to make it work illegally.
That said, Apple and OS X are far from perfect and certainly there are a lot more improvements that can be made but I'm not quite sure I agree with you that they're "neglecting" their desktop OS. A lot of changes that came with Lion left people with mix feelings but I find it difficult to believe that that, or any other argument (perhaps I'm missing some) indicates that OS X is being neglected. On the contrary, I think they're striving to continue to innovate on this part. Again, far from perfect but I also personally believe far from being neglected as well.
It's just, it's really hard to make money at scale on physical products. There's not much incentive to complete on this. Plus, many people have been trained to evaluate design quality as "looks like Apple products" ... which some days gets to the point where I just fire-bomb the place and take a vacation in Nepal, Tibet, one of those places with mountains.
Interface design specifically is a case where it often comes down to "stop breaking it" vs. "how do I add more awesome" - people make this horrible unusable goop and think it's good design. The Google refresh? Lord knows how much money they threw at that ... and while the old version wasn't all pretty with colors and gradients everywhere, it had fairly decent usability. The new version is riddled with issues, after putting substantially more effort into making it. WTF?
But putting all that aside, Apple is great in many ways currently. To do better is insanely difficult in part because no one has a clue what better actually is and hardware is a huge gamble unlike software. This and the above factor makes things difficult out the door. I would certainly love to see another hardware/software company come up to compete, and even one with a more web presence too (something Apple lacks a lot of when you look at companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google), but I'm not sure I see a reason for such a company to exist at the moment.
Most companies exist because there is an inherent problem that can be done better. I'm not sure I have much to complain with the way things are going as I'm sure many others don't either. Most of the complaints, if any, are Apple EULA or their closed ecosystem, not so much about things that are actually wrong with their products to the point where its a huge pain point.