1. My observation is that when new Apple computers are first released, they're not hugely out of range in features per dollar. After a few months they start to fall behind, and by their EOL, their pricing is a joke.

2. The range of features and power that you can acquire in the PC world (Microsoft and Linux) can allow you to get a machine that has less power but fits your needs for vastly less money. That's where the $500+ Apple tax really applies. There are simply price points Apple won't even touch.

3. The idea that more creative professionals use Apples is a little hard to justify. Does any large effects or animation company use Apples extensively besides Pixar? Which shares leadership from Steve Jobs with Apple. Every large effects and animation company I know of uses PCs with Linux, and most of the small ones I know of use PCs with Windows. I'm pretty sure there are considerable numbers (think thousands of them) of creative professionals using PCs in ILM, Sony Imageworks and Animation, Dreamworks, Disney, Rhythm and Hues and Digital Domain, not to mention game companies like Activision, Midway, et al.

I know creative professionals who use Macs. I just know a much larger number who use PCs both at work and at home. I've been a creative professional (artist/animator) for 22 years and started on Amigas, my wife has been a creative professional (storyboard artist and animation director, having worked at every large studio as well as smaller ones) for 15 years. We both have Windows PCs and laptops. Sometimes my wife gets a Mac to use at work, and she detests it. My wife has a side business doing design work for print and t-shirts using her PC as well.

Lately, we're noticing a lot of artists with tablet PCs, who draw their work directly on the screen. That market is almost completely word of mouth, since no one tries to sell them tablet PCs (though Wacom is capitalizing on the market with Penabled styluses).

My dislike for Apple has the same roots as my eventual disdain for Commodore and the Amiga: I detest being held captive by the same company making the OS and selling me the machine. A vertical market like that is like having to use roads where only one brand of car can work on the road. Even if that brand is Lexus, which makes excellent cars, a lot of us like to know a different choice is available. Some of us prefer the roads where we can use our choice of cars. Some of us also can't afford a luxury car, or have other uses for the price difference between economy and luxury.

Look at the companies with similar business models who were eventually rejected: Commodore and SGI. The visual effects and animation companies all used to be exclusively SGI based, with their own Irix as the OS. Now they all use PCs with Linux and maybe a small Windows presence and equally small Apple presence.

In no other discussion of this sort: American vs Japanese vs European cars/brands for example, or sport bikes vs cruisers (there are many subculture versions of This vs. That); they have similar religious overtones but in the end they all use the same gas and run on the same roads. That is not true of the Apple vs PC discussion. It would be true if Apple sold the Mac OS separately and allowed it to run (legally) on PCs purchased from any manufacturer.

When you talk Macs, it's largely Mac + Mac OS (with some running Windows or Linux on dual boot or emulators). When you talk PCs it's Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, eMachines, Acer, and numerous small manufacturers + Windows and/or Linux.

Competitively speaking, you can configure PCs from Dell or wherever, to basically be equivalent to any Mac, but you can't configure a Mac to equally match every configuration of a PC, particularly to make it price competitive with less powerful and less pretty models. If you just want a small Netbook or Tablet PC, you're SOL with Apple.

I'm not saying people who like Macs should abandon them, I'm just saying that there are a lot of reasons why Apple is still a niche market that won't be dominant unless their business model changes somehow. It works for them and it's high profit, so I don't see that happening.

What I do know, is that their marketing makes enemies of the people who use PCs without issues, which is the majority of us.

I like Charlie Brooker's observation in The Guardian about the British version of the Mac/PC ads:
"So when you see the ads, you think, 'PCs are a bit rubbish yet ultimately lovable, whereas Macs are just smug, preening tossers."

I don't agree with Brooker on a lot of levels in the article, but I do think he's hit the nail on the head when it comes to how many of us see those Mac commercials.

I think Microsoft's counter advertisements, the "I'm a PC" campaign, is a call to PC solidarity and identity, and works because of the Mac ads.

A fun thing I learned, was that the appeal of the Mac guy in the Mac vs PC commercials, is that he comes across as not being a computer guy. That's because, in real life, he isn't. Until he did the commercials, he didn't even use a computer of any make or model.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2006/11/expose_ousted_mac_man_was_comp.html

A lot of us see a deep truth about the market Apple is shooting for in the casting of Justin Long as "I'm a Mac".

I'm a PC, and I'm a professional digital artist, life long motorcycle enthusiast and sometimes ride a bicycle to work.

Regarding the so called Apple tax, this excellent post from Gizmodo lays it out pretty completely....and it notes that Dells are not much cheaper then Apples.

http://gizmodo.com/5065133/the-truth-about-the-...

Z

You have a great deal more leighway in terms of price when you build your own notebook. As far as off the shelf notebooks go for the average consumer, the 500 dollar apple tax tends to hold true.

And if the widely held belief, including among Apple enthusiasts, that Apple notebooks are signifigantly more expensive (but worth it) is not true, then there seems to be even fewer ways to explain why Apple has only about 4 percent of the computer market.

Z

"By and large, a Windows PC will always cost about 500 dollars less then an equvilent Apple…"

I disagree with this as well. When you make them feature-equivalent, the price differences are generally small. It is not the same to say that the cheapest Windows PC is $500 less than the cheapest Mac and that these two machines that you are talking about are feature-equivalent.

I just built equivalent Macbooks and Dell XPSM1330s (the MacBook has a better graphics adapter and iLife 08, the Dell has a biometric reader and a slightly bigger battery, otherwise they are fairly equivalent - same RAM, processor, hard disk, and optical drive) and the cost for the MacBook is $1549, the Dell $1348.

I base that statement on my own experience with Apple products (though not OSX, so I didn't specify that product), the statements of others who do use OSX, and Apple's own marketing statements. As always, one's own milage may vary I am sure.

Z

"the fact that it tends to be a very focused, non-technical OS that doesn’t require or allow much tweaking"

Doesn't require, or ALLOW much tweaking??? Have you even used OSX?

I think that the ongoing argument between Windows and Apple enthusiasts is degrading as usual into a fight between (no pun intended) apples and oranges.

Apple computers have a well-informed, devoted following especially amongst people who work in "creative" professions and has worked hard to nurture a "rebel" stance in the marketplace. An Apple computer succeeds due to it's long-fabled graphics ability, the stylish, intuitive nature of it's GUI, the fact that it tends to be a very focused, non-technical OS that doesn't require or allow much tweaking, and that through effective marketing Apple computers tend to represent a certain "lifestyle".

Windows PCs however were embraced early on by the Enterprise community and therefore control 95 percent of the PC/Notebook market. The Enterprise dominance has filtered into consumer products since a majority of users use their home computers as either their main work machine, or need it to interface easily with their office PC. Windows strength is due to strong brand recogntion, a highly versitile and adaptable OS which can either be hands-off or highly tweakable as needed, strong plug and play abilities coupled with avast array of accessories and componants, clever marketing and sales plans which have put Windows on almost every new PC sold for the last 20 years.

To argue that part of Window's dominance is not due to pricing is silly. By and large, a Windows PC will always cost about 500 dollars less then an equvilant Apple...and there are far fewer Apple models to choose from which certainly affects both price and availablilty. If you go into the marketplace today you will be able to choose from around 25-50 different computer models that run the Apple OS, as opposed to around 50,000 running Windows. Once certainly can;t say that Apple users are inheriently richer or less budget concious, but one can say that at least a sizable percentage are willing to pay a certain premium for the Apple name and mystique. "Brand Status" has always played a part in tech buying and always will.

All of that is of course just background to the question of the Ads. I have never much cared for the Apple ads since they always feel a little smug to me, like the cool kid deigning to give me some tips about being hip. I am also not that fond of the I'm a PC ads. I REALLY liked the Seinfeld Windows ads, but that is just me.

I find it interesting that Apple has always felt the need to market itself by comparing it's OS to Windows, not only in it's TV ads but in it's very nature. It has always lived or died as the "anti-Windows". I wonder what Apple would have become if Windows had never existed.

In that scenario I have a funny feeling Apple would be Microsoft and we would be complaining about all it's failings as opposed to some other small, "hip" computer company. Nobody likes anyone who succeeds "Too Much".

Z

"[1] Apple is trying to sell you a new machine, and new software. If you buy a new machine with Vista, and all new software, you’ll have few of the problems if any they talk about in the Apple ads."

And the likelihood of people buying a new Vista machine and all new software to go with it is slim. People want to continue using their existing software with a new OS instead of buying it all again. Why do you think Microsoft has so much old legacy code and compatibility modes still built into Windows?

"The other reality I know, is that people and businesses who are spending their own money and actually look at value for the dollar, buy PCs[3]. [3] The more fanatical value shoppers buy PCs with Linux if they can deal with the narrower software/driver availability and increased IT demands."

That's a pretty rose-colored reality you live in. I see immense value in both of the Macs I own.....more so than the Windows PC's I own.

Your statement is nothing more than an extremely biased opinion which tries to say that people who buy a Mac don't put the same value on money, that someone buying a Windows PC does. RUBBISH!

I don't really think that you can sell operating systems based on features to regular peeps. It opens files, browses the web, that's what most people care about. For a fraction of the money for a Mac, you can get an equivalently powered PC. For the more technically savvy, a PC with Linux.

The Apple commercials, while in recent years harassing Microsoft for Vista problems (most of which concern upgrading rather than new machines, legacy software/hardware, and those concerns are out of date at this point[1]), has the two characters: Uptight business looking nerd PC, and cool, casual artistic Mac. The implication has always been "People who are cool and creative, use Macs".


The latest "I'm a PC" campaign from Microsoft is about showing the wide variety of people in various walks of life using Windows PCs. It's not just for businesses. It's not just for nerdy losers[2]. It's for most of the people on the planet currently using computers. It reflects the reality I know.

The other reality I know, is that people and businesses who are spending their own money and actually look at value for the dollar, buy PCs[3]. They also have choices that vastly exceed the choices available from Apple.

--
FB

[1] Apple is trying to sell you a new machine, and new software. If you buy a new machine with Vista, and all new software, you'll have few of the problems if any they talk about in the Apple ads.
[2] This would be more true if Apple went after Linux. JK ;)
[3] The more fanatical value shoppers buy PCs with Linux if they can deal with the narrower software/driver availability and increased IT demands.

These recent ads are pure Gold!!

How many Microsoft ads do you remember from the last 3 years? Now compare that to how many Apple ads you remember.

It's very evident that Apple knows how to market their products successfully. Whether it be highlighting new features, or making a direct comparison as to why Apple/Mac/OSX is better.

Now before all of the idiots come out of the woodwork crying "Apple Fanboy", I use Vista and XP at work and really don't have any complaints about either. XP is rock solid and Vista has come a long way since it was first introduced. I do feel that OSX is nicer and easier to use however, and much prefer it.

I'm honestly quite confused about this whole new ad campaign from Microsoft. First it's Gates and Seinfeld, then Seinfeld is out and everyone has become a PC. The campaign (and I use that term loosely) seems to be all over the place and hasn't really defined any sort of idea, or picture. If anything, I think it's confused consumers more.

I think the Apple ads are getting old and tired...just like the Visa ads (Priceless) and other such ads that just repeat the same thing over and over again.

I'd think that everyone's market share is growing because instead of each home (in the US anyway) having one computer, computers have become a personal item...now everyone in the house has their own computer and there may be a couple of computers that are dedicated to other uses...like in my home there are 5 computers for 2 people! It really all boils down to personal choice and preferences....having a variety of computers to choose from is good...Nonethess, I, personally, don't ever see myself purchasing any Apple products (the advertising, fanboys, and rah rah rah just annoy me too much).

I think that if you look at all of the ads from the three years of these "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads that Apple has mentioned features far more than Microsoft has in their two recent ad campaigns (unless, of course, Microsoft truly is planning to make PCs soft and chewy, like cakes.)

Seems alot like the political scene today. One is better because the other one is worse. Or the Ford and Chevrolet arguements. I wish advertising would go back to selling features instead of this stuff.

Linux market share is growing too. To me that means only one thing, people like the diversity of Operating Systems and the freedom of choosing what they like and paying what they want.

For what it's worth, these ads must be working, as Mac market share keeps growing, mostly at Windows' expense. Particularly for home uses, particularly here in the US.