tomcat

Perfect description!! I am so intuitive about Nikon cameras and really used to know them backwards and forwards until those MRIs. I started with the Nikon F way back in 1971 and stayed with that brand since then and was an expert on their operation. My intuition allows me to pick up a brand new Nikon model and start using it right away without having to spend much time on the manual. That would not be so easy if I picked up a Canon camera because the OS is so different. I am not so intuitive about other brands.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I would respectfully disagree. Apple designs their products to work well without a lot of tinkering and searching for the latest driver. As a recent Apple convert (5 years), someone who also uses PCs and someone with IT and computer building experience, I much prefer the Apple platform to the PC platform. I'm willing to pay for something that works well without my intervention. Best of luck.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

One of the reasons for Apple's marginal gains in the business community goes back to the 90's when Apple, (cleverly) basically gave schools nearly free computers. Suddenly a large cohort of children were using Apple computers on a daily basis. 20 years later those kids are making purchasing decisions for companies. It is a testament to the qualities that make PC's useful to business that the gain has been so small.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I think the whole Mac vs. PC thing is, at the end of the day, silly. Neither Windows, nor MacOS, nor Linux, nor UNIX is going away. People should choose the tools that make sense to them, and move on. Apparently, some VERY large organizations are formally recognizing that now:

https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs-are-535-less-expensive-than-pcs/

https://www.jamf.com/blog/fortune-500-companies-follow-in-ibms-footsteps-with-mac-choice-programs/

https://www.jamf.com/blog/total-cost-of-ownership-mac-versus-pc-in-the-enterprise/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/19/ge_apple_move_impact_microsoft_analysis/

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/10/apple-and-ge-partner-to-bring-predix-industrial-apps-to-iphone-and-ipad/

https://www.onmsft.com/news/general-electric-migrating-330000-employees-away-from-windows-to-apple-following-in-the-footsteps-of-delta

These and dozens of other articles confirm what I've known from 32 years of using both platforms... Sometimes restrictions equal freedom.

"Do whaaaaaa???" I hear some people exclaiming. "Windows is an open market. You can do anything you want with it." Yes... and that's its greatest strength and weakness!

Most users are not completely "computer illiterate." They just have another focus. Any system that trips them on the way to reaching their goals becomes inferior when they discover something better.

I worked in IT and systems management and database development roles, from around 1990 to 2005. I had a PC and a Mac on my desk from '86 to 2012. I saw, first hand, the complexity that PC-based systems foist on users, and how the Windows OS and the IT culture using it created an aura of mystery, the unstated goal of which was to protect high salaries and provide job security for the initiated few. Usually, it was subtle, but often it was blatant. I had a couple of IT managers tell me the Mac was a threat to their jobs. That's because...

Users ultimately want their tools to be transparent to the tasks they perform with them. IBM figured out they can keep their employees on task more often with Macs, cut their support costs, and suddenly GE, Walmart, and many other companies are following suit. They aren't "pushing" the Macs, or replacing all their PCs, but they are allowing anyone who wants one to use one.

The Mac is the only hardware platform that can run MacOS, Windows, and Linux at the same time, or separately. It's universal. That's why many developers prefer to run their dev environments on Macs, especially if they create multi-platform applications. Many colleges and universities advise students to get Macs, because they run all the software they are likely to encounter over the course of their education. Some professors use Macs, some use Linux or UNIX, and some use Windows. My alma mater has, for over a decade, had iMacs in the student union and library, with both dual-boot capability and Parallels Desktop available to run multiple OSs side by side. My twins are freshmen at universities this year. They own Macs... Both schools liked that.

Large companies have learned that young, "bright stars" coming to them fresh out of school want to use the systems they are familiar with. Many graduates will not work for a company that insists they use a particular platform. Others will prefer to sign with companies that let them use the tools they want to use.

Apple hardware gets the same bad rap that IBM mainframe computers did both before and during the early years of personal computing. Macs are built from carefully chosen, time-tested components, to reasonable standards of reliability. So, they are not bleeding edge machines, and not known for setting speed records. They're built for reliability and longevity. That sometimes means the box is sealed, and components are soldered in place. The MacOS and its App Store creates a somewhat "walled garden" that helps to keep users safe, unless they choose to click on phishing links or open attachments in fake emails. Is that limiting? Perhaps. Developers really don't have a problem with it, because they understand its value. But tinkerers don't like it, because they want to get under the hood and tweak.

So, there are legitimate reasons why people use Windows, Linux, and MacOS. To deny any of them a place in the market would be foolish. Competition always improves things by promoting innovation. But there is, and has been, a culture of exclusivity surrounding Windows (and MS-DOS before it). It's exactly the same culture that pervaded IBM-based IT shops in the 1960s. "Nobody ever got fired for specifying IBM" was the catch phrase. It became, "Nobody ever got fired for specifying Microsoft." Accountants foolishly looked only at the cost difference in hardware between PCs and Macs, ignored the costs of training, of help desk support, and of maintenance, and told the IT guys (who usually reported to them) to buy PCs. Fortunately, there are well-reasoned cases to open things up a bit these days.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The burner phone reference you made actually concerns a completely different Samsung phone.

Quantus5

Actually, the primary reason for Apple's small uptick (over the last few years) has more to do with what's called the "Halo" effect, i.e. their success with the iPhone. If it wasn't for the iPhone they be in bad shape with their laptops.

Although -- some recent mis-steps haven't helped them recently, despite the "Halo" effect, like the Trashintosh and the touch bar silliness.

Another reason Apple's never made much gain in the business market is they still don't work well with lots of business systems and networks. Apple has never emphasized this kind of stuff, they've always focused on the end user. You do see mac shops in small startups and small companies, but in large companies they are not that common. Although every once in a while you see some CIO who's a huge Apple fan try to push Apple into a big company, then usually the guy leaves the company, and then they get rid of the Apples again. :-)

I don't necessarily have a beef with Apple -- my main reason why I've never gone the Apple route is you get a lot less for your dollars, a lot less...

Also I'm a believer in competition. Apple is actually a good thing. If Apple wasn't around Microsoft would be a total Monopoly. Competition is always a good thing.

Quantus5

This is a MYTH. Apple is just as expensive to use in a business environment as PCs. There is no inherent reason in user training and support that makes Macs less expensive. I've worked in a company that was a Mac shop, lots of issues just like PCs. The only difference is the Mac fans drink a lot more koolaid and have very selective memories.

In some ways Macs are much more expensive. The hardware itself is extremely non user-serviceable. Meaning you need loaners, while the Apple is out getting fixed through Apple care (which is expensive).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would be surprised if Fletcher Previn, CIO and a VP of IT at IBM would agree with you. By October of 2016, he had put over 90,000 Macs in the hands of employees there, with plans to land twice that many.

Quantus5

Mr. Plevin is one of those idiots I was referring to. IBM no longer producing laptops (selling to Lenovo) and now buying Macs. ;-)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

As of October 2017:

"IBM, Delta, GE and many more are using Macs/iOS. SAP has almost 13,000 Macs deployed across its business. Capital One has 12,000 Macs. GE recently announced plans to shift to iOS devices and Macs. Bank of America, Medtronic and Panera are adopting iPads. Even the New York Police Department recently revealed it is dumping Windows Phones for iOS.

Walmart is the latest major enterprise to say it is developing plans to deploy thousands of Macs across its business. The company already expects over 225,000 of its sales associates to be on iPad by the end of 2017." —Computerworld article linked below

They can't all be idiots.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3234770/apple-ios/windows-fades-as-business-develops-a-taste-for-apple.html

https://www.jamf.com/blog/fortune-500-companies-follow-in-ibms-footsteps-with-mac-choice-programs/

Quantus5

IMHO Mr Plevin is, but yes they are not all idiots.

btw: Most of your quotes are for iOS -- which means phones and tablets not laptops. And not sure if you are aware you can easily dig up just as many claims about people using Android phones and tablets.

And I've made the remark on the JAMF stuff before -- that's basically just an advertisement.

Also some people have standardized on Linux, and have made legitimate claims (based on their needs), and Chrome books have made huge inroads in the education market, where they make a lot of sense.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

But it is still only 11% market share, up from 9%. That's how many tech companies got their start. Autodesk, originally designed in a Sausalito garage, was not copy protected, and it was given away to just about anyone who asked for it. Once they got hold of their critical mass and the other short-sighted companies all went out of business, they went from charging $1200 a license to $4000 in increments. Oh, and the added some sophisticated copy protection, but each time they do that, it is circumvented by the clever hackers.

But Apple remains a smartphone company that also makes computers. That it their principal revenue stream, and when their phones do well, so does Apple.

Yes, the Apple is not a specialized machine, nor can it ever be made into one. This is the main disadvantage of a closed architecture. I have used Macs for video editing, and taught Final Cut Pro and Avid software for film and video editing - at the time the Mac offered a seamless way to do that. Once Adobe Premiere hit the streets, the Mac lost some of it's luster, since at the time a G4 set up for video cost north of $6000, and did not have fast or large storage, essential for non-linear video editing. For about half that cost, you were able to get a fast, XEON-based, motherboard, with a Matrox video display/capture card, etc, and it had 16 gb ram (compared to 1.5 gb on the PowerMac), and as much or as many hard drives as the motherboard could support. For a little more money, you could get an intelligent RAID card, and set up a RAID 1+0 for fast operation - wider bandwidth AND dual redundant hard drives, important for data integrity. At the college I taught at, we had two labs, one for Apple people and the other for PC people. In the three years I taught there, we saw more people migrate to the PC platform, partly because as nice as the Apple platform was to work on, few students could actually afford it, even with the academic discount which was about 10% at the time.

At the end of the day, except for the wide gamut support issue, which only affects corporate graphic services departments in their need for strict color accuracy, the only thing that really separates one from the other is cost. For the most part, no one here is going to be able to tell the difference.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Or a Texas Ruby Red grapefruit, compared to either of those grown in the other states . . .

tomcat

Interesting facts, but very outdated though. A G4 really? You are aware that Macs have gone way past a G4 now......

tomcat

I don't know that I ever tried a Texas Ruby Red, but I know that the ruby reds from FL are far superior to those in CA. I believe that the difference in the two states has to do a lot with the quality and quantity of the water supply. CA citrus has a tougher skin, less juicy, harder to peel, and the fruit is firmer and harder than the FL varieties. It generally has a bland cardboard taste. The Indian River region of FL has a constant water supply and is not subject to shortages or water draws from deep within the earth, where the mineral (iron) content is more severe. Same with the tomatoes and strawberries.