Apple's Post-PC World

[Santaman]

The cloud is again a little rubbish hype an empty buzzword, another lame ass attempt to bring back the ancient old mainframe/terminal system, a few years ago it was all called"net PC" or whatever (Oracle IIRC) and there have been other attempts alike..

I've been messing with computers since the early days and the PC has been declared dead about 10.000 times already.. I own a IBM XT and have machines ranging from the 8088 up to an AMD Phenom II and essentially they're the same, I can still run DOS 5.0 on the Phenom.
The PC won't go anywhere because people want that specific concept and nothing else...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've been messing with computers since the early days and the PC has been declared dead about 10.000 times already.. I own a IBM XT and have machines ranging from the 8088 up to an AMD Phenom II and essentially they're the same, I can still run DOS 5.0 on the Phenom.
The PC won't go anywhere because people want that specific concept and nothing else...

Exactly. PC-type computers dominate the market, always have and there's no evidence that any of these devices are changing that at all.

 

[Marc]

I would say that Apple has made a lot of inroads into professional environments. If you ever watch any sporting event, or any major event which has a lot of press coverage, all of the reporters are using MacBook Pros. You are right though that when it comes to the office environment which has a 1000 mindless drones (of which I am one) sitting in front of computers churning out BS... Apple has made no in-roads there.

Also, so far, price is the one thing that no one has been able to even come close to matching Apple on when it comes to tablets.

But that's only the reporters - what's running the back end - what's the keeping the scores, doing the logistics, counting the cash, keeping the world informed? It's not Apple equipment (and if you watch any a number of the major tennis Tournaments you'd see all the IBM logos about).

Apple has had some good business products but they've now gone the way of the dodo (the Xserver and it's RAID box) and they were a tad on the pricey side but they've more or less said they aren't interested in the business market.

It's been argued that the iPhone is a security nightmare for the business market. Yes it ties in with MS Exchange for example but doesn't always play nicely and the security isn't as great as what you can get with a Blackberry tied in with BES (thought it's another piece of software to run on your server).

Things like the smart phones and tablets won't replace the PC in the near future but what they do is provide us with greater flexibility when we're away from our desks.

 

[Arrqh]

I agree that the new Tegra2 tablets for example will cost an arm and a leg (probably even moreso than the iPad2), but there are numerous other examples of tablets of previous generation that are comparable if not far better than the iPad, yet much cheaper.

You can agree with it all you like but it's factually incorrect. The Xoom is just slightly more expensive then the iPad. The Notion Adam, which has been shipping in small quantities since last year, is powered by a Tegra 2 and its lowest model is $375.

 

[CaptainStoner]

There may be a segment of the population that will be fine without a real computer, but the PC doesn't get to go away because Apple says so. As others have said, there are a lot of people in the world who use their computers for more than email and the web. Apple's shiny toys don't fit the bill for actual work.

This. Fad toys like the iPad cannot replace a real computer. Just the sheer nature of trying to get anything done on a touch screen makes it cumbersome beyond all but the most simple of tasks.

This is true, although Apple's full computers have long been favored for non-office applications by those who have the $$$. I don't, and am a PC builder - power to the people !

 

[Santaman]

Apple can't compete with the PC with their full machines, they have to find devices around the PC and thats what they're good at, devices that can do one or two things a full PC can do without having to switch the PC on, if you need more then its still back to the PC.

 

[Marc]

Apple can't compete with the PC with their full machines, they have to find devices around the PC and thats what they're good at, devices that can do one or two things a full PC can do without having to switch the PC on, if you need more then its still back to the PC.

Says who.

While my only have a small percentage of the desktop and laptop computer market when you compare that against the various vendors their level of sales aren't something to be sneezed at.

 

[Santaman]

Says me, Apple can't in a billion years support the diversity in hardware the PC has, their software is the same, it lacks the diversity of the PC world, you can't custom build an Apple, you can't upgrade an Apple as easily as you can update a PC, in short its a shiny but limited world, one small enough for Apple to dictate.

 

[Lindley]

Says me, Apple can't in a billion years support the diversity in hardware the PC has, their software is the same, it lacks the diversity of the PC world, you can't custom build an Apple, you can't upgrade an Apple as easily as you can update a PC, in short its a shiny but limited world, one small enough for Apple to dictate.

That very limitation is also a strength. Less hardware diversity tends to mean more reliable drivers, after all.

I basically see Apple as the Mercedes/BMW to PCs' Chevy/Ford. Not everyone wants or needs to pay extra for the premium brand, and not everyone would see a benefit for doing so. But the premium brand doesn't need to corner the market to be a success.

 

[Santaman]

I don't see it as a strength, I want to run the hardware I choose, not the hardware Apple allows, I am the boss here, not Apple.

As for unreliable drivers, I haven't had any problem with that, not even in the old days of DOS/Win 3.11

 

[Marc]

I don't see it as a strength, I want to run the hardware I choose, not the hardware Apple allows, I am the boss here, not Apple.

Perhaps you can provide an example of people being stuck with only hardware Apple allows?

The limitations are very much the same with any PC that shares a form factor with USFP system - or an all in one unit or a laptop.

Apart from that you can use which ever peripherals you wish as long as there is driver support (which goes for any operating system - I have an SMC wireless card I can't use with Vista or Windows 7 due a lack of driver support).

As for unreliable drivers, I haven't had any problem with that, not even in the old days of DOS/Win 3.11

Then you have been very lucky.

Those of who work with computers for a living (sys admins, help desk, tech support see a lot more and we do see problems with drivers).

 

[Santaman]

I've build thousands of machines in my time, most of them PC's but also server machines and even a few laptops, as long you read up a little about the hardware you want to use then drivers usually aren't a problem, also my experiences in help desk/repair has pointed clearly out that user error is the most common PC problem LOL, in the old days software could cause the odd problem but most software has become quite good the last few years and hardware failures dangle near the bottom of causes.

As for Apple, indeed its a closed system, I can't use the AMD platform (CPU, mainboards etc etc) and not all graphics cards are supported to make a few examples.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Says me, Apple can't in a billion years support the diversity in hardware the PC has, their software is the same, it lacks the diversity of the PC world, you can't custom build an Apple, you can't upgrade an Apple as easily as you can update a PC, in short its a shiny but limited world, one small enough for Apple to dictate.

That very limitation is also a strength. Less hardware diversity tends to mean more reliable drivers, after all.

I basically see Apple as the Mercedes/BMW to PCs' Chevy/Ford. Not everyone wants or needs to pay extra for the premium brand, and not everyone would see a benefit for doing so. But the premium brand doesn't need to corner the market to be a success.

This is the way Apple's marketing sells it, but really the fair comparison is like paying twice as much for your Ford because it looks like a BMW and has a BMW badge on it. Under the hood, you're still getting a Ford engine.
You're getting a premium price, but not necessarily a better computer. Apple computers look nicer, they have fantastic screens, but you've essentially got the same CPU, the same RAM, the same graphics etc. That's not saying they're selling worse computers, because they're not, but the prices are literally double of the equivalent PC. If you're willing to pay that, fine, but don't think that makes it a better machine. With a PC, I can custom build it with the best motherboard brand, the best CPU brand, the best graphics card brand, the best brand RAM, the best brand case, the best brand PSU, the best brand hard drive. THAT is premium branding, not the logo on the front of the computer.

Throw on top of that that I can barely upgrade/replace anything in it, I can barely add anything to it, it has virtually no ports on it for expansion, and it's really a no brainer for me. I don't want to spend double the price of an entire PC every time I want an upgrade. I've been running the one PC forever, and just upgrading it as I need it. Most parts are easy enough to install yourself (and most people who think this is techy nerd work has probably never seen inside a PC), and even if you want to pay someone to do it, it works out cheap.
True, this can lead to some occasional hardware problems. 99% of the bluescreens of my computer are from a soundcard with shitty drivers, a problem you won't have on a Mac because of it's limited hardware that can be tested thoroughly. But it comes at such a huge cost, it's just not worth it to me. I'd rather not encourage Apple's completely closed and restrictive practices, because it's everything that is wrong with computing today.

 

[Jadzia]

To play devil's advocate here, there are some benefits to closed architectures, like with games consoles, but I don't think they deserve to command a higher price.

More than anything, closed architecture offers simplicity:

Simplicity for the end user, because everything works out of the box.

Simplicity for software developers, because the system is standard. There is only one configuration (instead of billions). If your application works on one machine, then it works on them all.

Optimum performance, because a standard configuration can be pushed to the max by default. There's no need to throttle the algorithmic complexity of new software out of fear that some hardware configurations won't be able to handle it.

With an open architecture applications cannot communicate with hardware directly, as there is need for layers of hardware abstraction: as part of the operating system, as part of bios, and through the need for drivers. These all take a slice of your system's performance.

People value the freedom to choose because they believe they know what's best for optimizing their own happiness, but that freedom to choose has it's own overhead that can sometimes outweigh the gains.

 

[BlobVanDam]

To play devil's advocate here, there are some benefits to closed architectures, like with games consoles, but I don't think they deserve to command a higher price.

More than anything, closed architecture offers simplicity:

Simplicity for the end user, because everything works out of the box.

Simplicity for software developers, because the system is standard. There is only one configuration. If your application works on one machine, then it works on them all.

Optimum performance, because a standard configuration can be pushed to the max by default. There's no need to throttle the algorithmic complexity of new software out of fear that some hardware configurations won't be able to handle it.

With an open architecture applications cannot communicate with hardware directly, as there is need for layers of hardware abstraction both as part of the operating system and as part of bios. These take a slice of your system's performance.

People value that freedom to choose because they believe they know what's best for optimizing their own happiness, but that freedom to choose has it's own overhead that can sometimes outweigh the gains.

All valid points, but when it comes to Mac/PC, I'm not sure how much of a difference they make.
I don't think simplicity for the end user makes much of a difference, because it's no easier to buy a Mac than to buy any other package computer. You hook it up, and it works. The integrated monitor makes it marginally easier to set up, but not by much.
As for performance and optimization, the company putting together a PC will do this. They'll stick to a few major brands, which have better drivers, and the common configurations are so widely used and tested already.
As for open architecture, I don't know anything about how Mac OSX communicates with the hardware, but considering one OS still covers many different configurations, I'd guess it still has to abstract it at a driver level similarly to Windows. Although in general it can be a huge benefit (your mention of consoles are a good example, although I think even they're getting fairly high level these days).
Then we have the negatives of these closed systems. A hardware fault is going to affect more users, because they were stuck with limited options. And you're relying on one company for updates and upgrades and features.

So overall, the closed system probably isn't a major pro or con to the average user for computers, but it becomes more of an issue when you look at Apple's portable devices. This is where I am most concerned for where the future of computing is heading.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Macs are good computers for certain people in certain situations.

If you just want to use your computer and not have to care one whit about how it works internally, a Mac is a good choice. You pay for that convenience, but it's there. If there's one thing Macs always get praised for, it's their user-friendliness. I will say that when I've jumped onto my friends' Macs I have no trouble figuring out how to use it, even though I don't own one or get much exposure to them.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I agree..... to a degree.
I find that Macs have the same issues as anything else "user friendly". It's extremely easy to set up the basics, such as options, networking, programs. But as soon as I wanted to do anything a little more complex beyond the bare basics, it was actually more difficult to get it done, because it was designed for simplicity, not for power. Simplicity usually comes at a price, in my experience.
Although my idea of bare basics may be a bit different to most people. I'm the first to admit I'm not the typical computer user

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The "bare basics" are all the vast majority of users will ever be concerned with. We are not typical users so we easily see the shortcomings!

 

[Lindley]

But as soon as I wanted to do anything a little more complex beyond the bare basics, it was actually more difficult to get it done, because it was designed for simplicity, not for power. Simplicity usually comes at a price, in my experience.
Although my idea of bare basics may be a bit different to most people. I'm the first to admit I'm not the typical computer user

I'm curious what you were having trouble with. Also, you are aware that OSX provides a unix terminal interface, right? Just for those times when you really need to get at something.

 

[infinix]

The war between PC/Apple was over 2 decades ago when IBM decided to open up its hardware architecture and allow almost any third party to build to its specs. Most of the people who are serious about computers built their own system choosing exactly the spec/brand of just about every part of the system. I've build about 20 different systems for myself and my friends. Those of us that do this enjoy it work and wants the peace of mind of knowing what exactly I'm putting into a computer.

The trend of consumer PC followed that trend and always had a much lower entry price point than a Mac. Thus, Windows PC as we know them still dominates the market.

The situation is different when it comes to consumer electronics, namely the MP3/Video player + cell phones. Undoubtedly, Apple is dominating in this market. And it looks like Apple want to make computers (laptops or otherwise) equivalent to a normal consumer electronic. The Ipads are the result of this effort. If Apple succeeds in doing this, then they will be on their way to killing PC for good. However, there are too many people like me who enjoys building their own machines to ever give up on that market.

On the server front, that's an entirely different story. Like others have pointed out. Apple is not touching that market at all. Apple has built an image for itself that it is trendy and fashionable. This is good for consumer electronics, but not so good when it comes to a business server environment.

I find it very interesting that Apple is becoming what it has advertised to be against back in the 80's. Apple is becoming the same control freak, price gauging, you get what we want to give you, draconian institution that it accused IBM of being way back when.