Mac vs. PC - the great debate

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well Macs are clearly the more useful machines, what with their powerful server operating systems, Enterprise support and 95% market share. I mean, every piece of software on the market works with it, especially games and database programs. Almost every business network in the world is comprised of NOTHING but Macs!

Oh oops, not Macs, I meant PC's .

there is absolutely nothing your PC can do that my mac can't do as well or better. There are things I can do on my mac that PC cannot do as well. OSX server>Windows server, and both machines will run Apache. There is a reason Mac is gaining market share and PC is loosing market share...

I guess since more people buy Hyundais that they're better than Mercedes Benzes?

I have a windows partition on my hard drive, there is very rarely any reason at all to boot from it, though... I even uninstalled VMware Fusion because having windows was completely useless.

“Our goal is not to build the most computers. It’s to build the best.”

That was Apple COO Tim Cook two days ago during Apple’s quarterly earnings call. Sure, it may sound like spin from an executive who doesn’t have a better answer as to why Apple isn’t competing in the low-end of the market, and thus, gaining market share. But it’s not.

You need look no further than numbers released today by NPD to understand Apple’s strategy. Its revenue share of the “premium” price market — that is, computers over $1,000 — is a staggering 91%. This means that 9 out of every 10 retail dollars that is spent on PCs in that price range, goes to Apple, as Betanews’ Joe Wilcox points out. That, for lack of a better word, is insane.

Analysts and journalists are often quick to point out Apple’s relatively low overall market share (less than 10%). But that completely misses the point of Apple’s Mac business. If Apple wanted to make a range of low-end computers, it absolutely could. And such machines would sell like crazy, boosting Apple’s market share. But there would have to be some trade-off in quality, and perhaps more importantly to Apple, to its high margins. And as it has proven time and time again, it has no desire to give up either.

Instead, Apple is content to keep churning out its high-quality, high-margin machines, and watch the profits roll in. If it happens to gain market share as a byproduct of that, that’s great. You can’t be so naive to think that Apple doesn’t care about that at all, of course it does, but it’s clearly a secondary goal, which most people don’t seem to understand.

It’s a metaphor that’s often used, but a way to think about it is if Windows-based PCs as a whole are thought of as a top selling car like the Toyota Camry, Apple’s Mac computers would be more like a luxury car, like a Porsche. Porsche sales are just a fraction of Camry sales because it does not sell any models in the low-end price range. But at the same time, Porsche makes more money on each car sold and maintains a premium branding. If Porsche started selling cheap cars, it would move a lot more units, but it would no longer be the Porsche brand that we know.

That’s not to say the Camry sucks or that the Porsche is perfect. They’re just two different cars that cater to different markets. And they represent the two different goals that most Windows-based PCs have (market share) versus Apple’s Mac computers (high-end revenue share).

And that’s why Microsoft’s recent Laptop Hunter commercials really never made a lot of sense. Sure, from a marketing perspective, I understand the idea: It’s a down economy, lets play up the fact that our computers are cheaper. But in many of the spots, the shopper’s stated desired computer was simply not something that Apple even made. In the famous first commercial, Lauren wants a laptop with a 17-inch screen for under $1,000. Okay, Apple doesn’t make that product. So of course she’s not going to buy a Mac.

The real point is that people who are shopping for computers where price is the key factor, were never going to buy Macs anyway. They never have. There is a reason Apple still has less than 10% market share. Did Microsoft need to spend millions of dollars on commercials to tell us that?

Instead, those commercials set up a narrative around the bifurcation of the computer-buying public. And today’s NPD numbers are the perfect ending to that story. If you’re a consumer looking for a bargain computer, you’re happy to save money buying a PC. If you’re looking for a premium computer, you’re happy to spend more money buying a Mac.

 

[Synethste]

When you buy a Mac, you are also paying a premium for OSX... an operating system which is in my opinion, far superior to Windows. I was an avid windows user for 18 years, then switched to Mac when they went to intel chip sets, and was floored by how well everything works... It just does what you want it to... on my PC i'd have to install drivers, or do this before I did that, or reconfigure this to do something else... not to mention dealing with Norton or some other virus software... Yuck. Before Leopard, I would probably opt for Windows, but nowadays unless you're a hardcore gamer, OSX just seems like a more logically put together operating system. I'm also a sucker for shiny things.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

...

Apple may not take the stage at Sunday's Oscars, but the company will be well represented by many filmmakers, directors, producers, and editors who will pick up awards.


In fact, 9 out of 10 of this year's nominees in the "Documentary Feature" and "Documentary Short" categories used Final Cut Studio to make their films. Final Cut Studio includes Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Color, Compressor, and DVD Studio Pro, essentially giving filmmakers all of the tools they need to make a movie.

CNET caught up with a few of the people responsible for making some of this year's nominated movies including Matthew O'Neil, director of "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province;" Kim Roberts, editor of "Food, Inc.;" and Dan Wilken, online editor of "Food, Inc."

"We switched over entirely to Final Cut Pro and forced any holdout editors to switch too, because it made the most sense economically and allowed us to do everything we needed," said O'Neil.

Roberts agreed. "I tend to work on a lot of independent documentaries and Final Cut Pro is affordable and a good application. It's been a natural choice for filmmakers," she said.

One of the big draws about Final Cut Studio for all of the people we spoke with is its ability to do a variety of tasks. Like most jobs, Filmmakers and editors are expected to do more tasks these days before the movie is handed off for post production.

Because Final Cut Studio includes so many tools, filmmakers are able to create very polished rough cuts. That allows the editors to present a great looking film right out of the box.


"You can do it all with Final Cut Studio and we can make it look close to finished all in-house," said O'Neil.

Of course, Final Cut Pro isn't the only product available for filmmakers, but it is the most popular now. According to market research firm SCRI International, Final Cut Pro has almost 50 percent market share in the nonlinear editor space, outperforming competitors like Avid.

Being a professional editor, Roberts said she feels equally comfortable using Final Cut Pro or Avid, but she said, "I prefer Final Cut--it's more intuitive and there are a lot of smart things about it."
Like most things these days, a lot of consideration comes down to price. Wilken said Final Cut Studio gives you almost everything you need.

"Final Cut Pro can do most everything that the million dollar systems can do and it costs you below $15,000 (this includes the cost of a Mac, Final Cut and video cards)," said Wilken. "The truth is, for several projects I've worked on, we can do everything with the same gear you use at home."

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Apple is the most trusted company according to Fortune Mag...

(Fortune Magazine) -- Whew, what a year! Last January bankers looked positively sheepish in their new role as federal employees. But by the end of 2009 they had ditched their government bosses and begun swaggering again. During the same period Ford went from the worst loss in its history to the top of U.S. car companies, its stock up more than 300% -- while Toyota began what would become a dramatic fall.

The financial crisis may finally be abating, but after a year of dramatic ups and downs, there's little doubt that corporate reputation matters more than ever before. Perhaps it's no surprise, then, that while entire industries adjust to wrenching changes as the economy starts to stabilize, a ranking of who's admired and who's not would have particular import.

Indeed, our annual comprehensive Most Admired Companies survey this year generated the highest response rate in its history.

But here's something interesting: Despite all the gyrations, turnover on our list this year was just 10%, roughly what it has been for most of the past decade. Seventeen companies have been on the All-Star list since its inception in 2001; more than half of this year's top 50 have been on the list eight of the past 10 years. That rock-solid staying power is a testament to the lasting value these elite companies have created. And it shows how tough it is to make our All-Star list.

What exactly does it mean to be admired? Whether you call it a sterling reputation, integrity, or trust, this aspect of a company's DNA can seem like an imprecise concept in the numbers-driven world of business. But for the companies on the list, trust and integrity are not just vague terms: They're durable assets with a financial payoff. And in 2009 trust took center stage. As Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express (No. 29), puts it, "The competitive advantage of trust has never been more important or more valuable."

So which company does business admire most? Even among this select group there is a clear leader: For the third straight year Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) takes the No. 1 spot -- this time by the highest margin ever, according to Hay Group, the management consulting firm that collaborates with Fortune on the list. Indeed, in 2009, 51% of corporate leaders surveyed said they admired Apple, an unprecedented majority.

What accounts for Apple's exalted status? One explanation is that it is the company that has single-handedly changed the way we do everything from consume music and access information to design products and engage with the world around us.

Because of its track record, consumers and businesses alike trust Apple's inventions and its ability not only to churn out products that connect with customers but also to introduce a new way of doing things -- to literally show us what's next. Says Norbert Reithofer, CEO of BMW (No. 22): "Apple's customers are more than customers -- they're fans. The whole world held its breath before the iPad was announced. That's brand management at its very best."

 

[SoCaliSmoker]

Only two apples I enjoy:

AND -

Other than the Iphone I have nothing else to add about Apple. The Iphone is incredible. Everything else that's Apple is just not for me (we're all entitled to our opinions)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Why MAC is actually cheaper than PC in the real world business environment.

Macs are often the black sheep in the many enterprise environments which have been dominated by Windows for nearly two decades, but the growing consumerization of IT is slowly changing that perception. Though Macs often have a higher up-front price than many business-class PCs, Macs are usually believed to have a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) due to lower support costs. A recent survey of IT professionals in large enterprise environments that have a mix of Macs and PCs overwhelmingly agree that Macs cost less than PCs to support.

The Enterprise Desktop Alliance, which seeks to make it easier to integrate Macs in Windows-centric IT deployments, surveyed IT admins from companies that made large deployments, including universities and government agencies. Responses included in EDA's analysis include those from environments with a mix of Macs and PCs that had a total of 50 servers or over 100 Macs.

A majority of respondents said that Macs cost less in terms of time spent troubleshooting, user training, help desk calls, and system configuration. Admins generally agreed that costs related to software licensing and supporting infrastructure were the same between the two platforms.

Two-thirds of those managing mixed environments plan to increase the number of Macs deployed in 2010. Twenty-nine percent cited lower TCO as a "key reason" for deploying Macs. Almost half cited lower TCO, ease of support, or a combination of the two as leading factors in Mac adoption. User preference and increased productivity were considered important factors as well.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-notably-less-to-support-than-windows-pcs.ars

"As a greater percentage of enterprise applications become OS-neutral, the cost to support a more diverse hardware and OS mix will decrease, making Macs a more viable choice for a greater number of users who continue to demand them," noted Michael Silver, vice president and research director at Gartner, in a recent report on PC trends. Macs tend to be popular among C-level execs, as well as with those in creative departments and developers (especially cross-platform developers).

Apple has historically done little to actively develop a traditional strategy to target enterprise deployment. Instead, the company tends to focus on consumers first, and lets individuals drive enterprise demand for its computers and mobile devices. It does, though, make continual small improvements that make it easier to integrate Macs, iPhones, and soon iPads into many corporate environments.

 

[harpocrates]

LOLOL, you guys are still arguing opinion?

In reference to the nostalgia a page or two back, I cut my teeth on a Commodore VIC-20. Windows & Mac... pffttt... I'll put my money on the Vic all the way.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

LOLOL, you guys are still arguing opinion?

not me. I stated my opinion earlier. What I just posted is fact. Mac is cheaper for a business to run on than PC.

In reference to the nostalgia a page or two back, I cut my teeth on a Commodore VIC-20. Windows & Mac... pffttt... I'll put my money on the Vic all the way.

http://gizmodo.com/5496112/the-return-of-the-commodore-64

Brace yourself, lovers of all things retro, because the Commodore 64 will rise from the dead in all its keyboard form factor glory. It will probably be based on the Cybernet ZPC-GX31, although I hope it looks like this:



Utilitarian clean lines, hefty chunkiness, and glorious beige. That's the Commodore 64 everybody loves, not the travesty at the beginning of this post. Or maybe it's just me who loves it, because I still remember playing Pitstop, Summer Games, Star Wars, and the impossible-to-finish Ghostbusters in my school's computer lab, in between BASIC programming lessons and multiple-choice tests.

Then again, I wouldn't mind buying the Asus Eee Keyboard PC with a Commodore 64 logo on it:



Hopefully, Barry Altman—President and CEO of Commodore USA—is taking notes. [Engadget]

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Gotta love Simons' basic. =]

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Interesting news story...

Mobile computing has taken over as the main driver of growth in PC sales for the past year, with notebooks overtaking desktops in late 2008 and sales of desktops declining for the last two years. However, Caris & Company analyst Robert Cihra is expecting desktops to show a small positive growth this year, due in large part to brisk sales of Apple's iMac.

Cihra still expects notebooks and netbooks to account for 90 percent of overall growth in the market for the current year. But the increased demand driven by emerging markets, a slight increase in corporate IT spending, and "power gamers" should result in a 3 percent uptick in desktop sales over last year.

"Believe it or not," Cihra wrote in a note to investors, "we estimate Apple's iMac accounting for a full one quarter of ALL desktop market growth in calendar year 2010."

The number isn't so surprising when you consider that the iMac pushed an impressive 70 percent year-over-year growth in desktop Mac sales for 2009. Contrast that with a 12 percent drop in overall sales of desktops for the same time frame.

Apple's second fiscal quarter sales are already looking healthy, with sales up 36 and 43 percent year over year for January and February respectively. Those figures led Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster to peg Mac sales at about 2.9 million for the quarter. That's less than the recent record quarters of late, but would still mark a 31 percent year-over-year growth compared to the second quarter last year. Sales of iMacs resumed in earnest recently after manufacturing problems with the large 27" LCD panels caused some delays.

Cihra also praised Apple in his note for its ability to drive growth without sacrificing average selling prices or margins. ASPs for desktop and portable Macs have decreased slightly over the last year, while ASPs for HP and Dell have dropped more dramatically. Meanwhile, Apple's tight control on costs have driven increased operating margins that exceed even the gross margins of HP, Dell, and Acer. It's worth noting that while Acer has seen explosive sales growth over the last year—in particular due to low-cost netbooks—the company's operating margins hover around 3 percent while Apple's are just over 25 percent.

And speaking of mobile computing sales...

of course, Apple hasn't made any official announcements about sales numbers, but that hasn't stopped clever buyers with a Google spreadsheet from estimating how many iPads Apple is selling. Using order numbers matched up to the time of order, estimates range from about 20,000 to 25,000 iPads sold per hour in the hours after Apple raised the curtain. Assuming the majority of sales are the $499 entry-level model, Apple could be grossing about $10 million per hour. If this rate keeps up, it's possible Apple will sell through its first batch of iPads (set to ship April 3) this weekend.

And back to desktops...

Apple is also said to be wrapping up an update to its Mac Pro workstation towers, which have only gotten a slight speed bump since they were introduced well over a year ago. Apple has been waiting for Intel to release new 32nm Xeon parts, codenamed "Westmere-EP," which were officially launched this week. These 5600-series Xeons have six cores compared to the quad-core parts used in current Mac Pros. The process shrink from 45nm offers a 60 percent performance boost while maintaining the same power requirements of previous Xeons.

 

[harpocrates]

not me. I stated my opinion earlier. What I just posted is fact. Mac is cheaper for a business to run on than PC.

Ahhh... but not all businesses are the same... some people actually know what they are doing and don't run in to all those problems, most of which seem only imaginary from certain points of view.

I can't believe I actually forgot about the uber commodore tape drive!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ahhh... but not all businesses are the same... some people actually know what they are doing and don't run in to all those problems, most of which seem only imaginary from certain points of view.

I can't believe I actually forgot about the uber commodore tape drive!

In 90 percent of businesses you have the IT people who know what they're doing... and the masses worker of drones who beat data into their computers willy nilly without regard for doing things properly, and surf virus laden free pron sites all day.... The IT people spend most of their time cleaning up worker drone messes, and maintaining the network.

The IT people say that Macs are way less costly to maintain. Not really an opinion, since Total Cost of Ownership is easily quantified.

If you want to bother registering the data is available HERE: http://www.enterprisedesktopalliance.com/resource_center.html

 

[harpocrates]

In 90 percent of businesses you have the IT people who know what they're doing... and the masses worker of drones who beat data into their computers willy nilly without regard for doing things properly, and surf virus laden free pron sites all day.... The IT people spend most of their time cleaning up worker drone messes, and maintaining the network.

Yeah, like I said... not all businesses are the same. Twats are twats and will mess up any comp, period.

My entire point is that when a person knows what they are doing, the entire PC vs. Mac argument is moot.

Using the dumb twats at work argument is kinda silly isn't it?

This, like a million other online debates makes people seem plain obsessive and it really is a waste of time... I can't understand people's need to say the same crap over and over and over again. It kinda paints a funny picture for some people.

Chips on shoulders about computer epeen... lmao, for real...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Not silly at all... after it all boils down to practicality. In the vast majority of business environments, mac is gonna be cheaper. For the vast majority of home users, mac is gonna provide a better experience.

Call it "silly" or "opinion" all you want to... Numbers don't lie, Cost is quantifiable, and The article I posted was SOPT ON. Mac is actually cheaper than PC over time, all things considered. The PC person who knows what they are doing will loose more productivity and spend more time "minding their p's and q's" than the mac person who also knows what they're doing.

Like I said... the numbers are all there... I posted the link, if you want to bother to register, so you can see them.
Call 'cost analysis' mere opinion if you like, though, I guess.

 

[AntelopeDope]

In 90 percent of businesses you have the IT people who know what they're doing... and the masses worker of drones who beat data into their computers willy nilly without regard for doing things properly, and surf virus laden free pron sites all day.... The IT people spend most of their time cleaning up worker drone messes, and maintaining the network.

The IT people say that Macs are way less costly to maintain. Not really an opinion, since Total Cost of Ownership is easily quantified.

If you want to bother registering the data is available HERE: http://www.enterprisedesktopalliance.com/resource_center.html

Uhm... you are wrong.

I work in IT cleaning up the messes you speak of, and nothing is worse than troubleshooting business/medical software for a snooty board member on his MAC. MAC = fail as far as business software development.

 

[harpocrates]

Not silly at all... after it all boils down to practicality. In the vast majority of business environments, mac is gonna be cheaper. For the vast majority of home users, mac is gonna provide a better experience.

Call it "silly" or "opinion" all you want to... Numbers don't lie, Cost is quantifiable, and The article I posted was SOPT ON. Mac is actually cheaper than PC over time, all things considered. The PC person who knows what they are doing will loose more productivity and spend more time "minding their p's and q's" than the mac person who also knows what they're doing.

Like I said... the numbers are all there... I posted the link, if you want to bother to register, so you can see them.
Call 'cost analysis' mere opinion if you like, though, I guess.

Please dude... another problem with the net is that people love to put up links like they are the gospel... if you want, I'll go dig up some links to the contrary... but that proves nothing, just like your link(s), prove nothing.

Your post(s), just ooooozzze supposition.

I worked in the IT field, installing networks, T1 lines, DSL lines, web design and a bit of tech support. IME, you are wrong... I don't need to dig up a web page to tell me what I've experienced in real life...

A person should mind their "p's and q's", at work and fuck up their own computers at home...

Here is a fact that you don't even need to go off site for... the majority of pro mac people here have ego issues or something. I mean... you really give a shit that much??? Relax....

I'm not pro Mac or PC, people should use what they like and learn a little bit about what they are using... in that case the point is certainly moot as there is no "better".

 

[ReelBusy1]

I'm a PC but I have an iPhone too.

 

[a12]

Today I still like PC better yet... have both... but I am not into music/video editing... what surprise me was two friends who are average users, they switched back to PC from Macbook...

Peace

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Uhm... you are wrong.

I work in IT cleaning up the messes you speak of, and nothing is worse than troubleshooting business/medical software for a snooty board member on his MAC. MAC = fail as far as business software development.

NOT according to the MAJORITY of IT professionals...
I provided a link proving what I said... I'm not making shit up off of the top of my head and numbers do not lie...

I was talking about well educated IT professionals...

The statistical support for my point: http://www.enterprisedesktopalliance.com/resource_center.html

Macs are often the black sheep in the many enterprise environments which have been dominated by Windows for nearly two decades, but the growing consumerization of IT is slowly changing that perception. Though Macs often have a higher up-front price than many business-class PCs, Macs are usually believed to have a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) due to lower support costs. A recent survey of IT professionals in large enterprise environments that have a mix of Macs and PCs overwhelmingly agree that Macs cost less than PCs to support.

The Enterprise Desktop Alliance, which seeks to make it easier to integrate Macs in Windows-centric IT deployments, surveyed IT admins from companies that made large deployments, including universities and government agencies. Responses included in EDA's analysis include those from environments with a mix of Macs and PCs that had a total of 50 servers or over 100 Macs.

A majority of respondents said that Macs cost less in terms of time spent troubleshooting, user training, help desk calls, and system configuration. Admins generally agreed that costs related to software licensing and supporting infrastructure were the same between the two platforms.

Two-thirds of those managing mixed environments plan to increase the number of Macs deployed in 2010. Twenty-nine percent cited lower TCO as a "key reason" for deploying Macs. Almost half cited lower TCO, ease of support, or a combination of the two as leading factors in Mac adoption. User preference and increased productivity were considered important factors as well.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-notably-less-to-support-than-windows-pcs.ars

"As a greater percentage of enterprise applications become OS-neutral, the cost to support a more diverse hardware and OS mix will decrease, making Macs a more viable choice for a greater number of users who continue to demand them," noted Michael Silver, vice president and research director at Gartner, in a recent report on PC trends. Macs tend to be popular among C-level execs, as well as with those in creative departments and developers (especially cross-platform developers).

Apple has historically done little to actively develop a traditional strategy to target enterprise deployment. Instead, the company tends to focus on consumers first, and lets individuals drive enterprise demand for its computers and mobile devices. It does, though, make continual small improvements that make it easier to integrate Macs, iPhones, and soon iPads into many corporate environments.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Please dude... another problem with the net is that people love to put up links like they are the gospel... if you want, I'll go dig up some links to the contrary... but that proves nothing, just like your link(s), prove nothing.

Your post(s), just ooooozzze supposition.

I worked in the IT field, installing networks, T1 lines, DSL lines, web design and a bit of tech support. IME, you are wrong... I don't need to dig up a web page to tell me what I've experienced in real life...

A person should mind their "p's and q's", at work and fuck up their own computers at home...

Here is a fact that you don't even need to go off site for... the majority of pro mac people here have ego issues or something. I mean... you really give a shit that much??? Relax....

I'm not pro Mac or PC, people should use what they like and learn a little bit about what they are using... in that case the point is certainly moot as there is no "better".

links to valid verifiable statistical proof are good for supporting evidence and validation of assertions...

There is no "better" but there is "works better" and "costs less to operate over the lifespan of the machine"...

Macheads are not egotistical, they just have higher standards.
^^OPINION^^

Macs are cheaper to use in the long run and there is not one single thing you can do with a PC that you cannot do with a Mac.
^^FACT^^

'nuff said