[KLUG Advocacy] Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops

[Robert G. Brown]

>>>But Macs are still only a good deal when compared with
>>>higher-end PCs. 
>>This is their market... thry're not interested in competing against the
>>commodity PCs, only the upper-end units.
>The iMacs are close to competing.  I think they are very short-sighted
>if they don't value the bottom end.  If the bottom end is 75% of the
>installed base...
Perhaps Apple would *like* to see the iMac become even more competitive,
but IMO they're not betting the company on it. It's better to go with 
the higher margin, upper end stuff first, then use some of the margin 
to attack the lower end. THis approach locks insome profits, which keeps
the investors happy.

>the bottom end achieves the ability to dictate standards to the top end.
>This very clearly favors Microsoft since they probably own the vast majority 
>of the bottom end.  
Ya gotta start somewhere, and this point shows how had selecting a place
to start really is. I'm not sure you're quite right about this, but you're 
not wrong! :)

>From what I've seen, as one moves up the food chain, one sees greater
>diversity.  But the pressure felt by users of the ubiquitous bottom-end
>platform can be overwhelming.
When there's more money to spend on solving problems, and the demand for
quality and reliability increases, you're boundto see more diversity,
since more people are motivated to provide solutons.

The lower end changes, however slowly. I retired 5 Win95 machines in the 
last few days, since hey could not run software required by the client.
Linux assualts from the lower end (like any good disruptive technology),
while Apple nibbles away at the top end.

>>>And Apple is on a crazy
>>>release cycle for OS X,  the Mac nut I know has purchased Mac OS X three
>>>times since it came out,  so that has to be figured in.  
>>>Plus the price of M$-Office for the Mac (the ones I saw came with Apple 
>>>works).
>>Not a strong selling point, even to Mac enthisiasts (and if there's a Mac
>>buff here that wants to call me dead wrong, please... don't be shy! :)
>
>Ok, but it does raise the initial cost significantly as many PC bundles
>include Office (since Works went away).  Without exception, every Mac
>I've met has Office on it. 
Not cost... price. I've not run into a lot of Macs recently, and they've
all been used for some "oddball" applications, and *NONE* of them had
Office on them. So go figure....

Is the *price* of an Office-equipped PC escalated to the same amount as 
that of a similarly equipped Mac?

>....the commercials are great,  they really hit peoples frustration. 
>And it is something to which Microsoft has no answer,  as there driver
>model is fundamentally flawed. 

>Fortunately this advantage applies to Linux, which is usually
>plug-n-play, although maybe not to such a degree as the Mac.  These
>commercials can work to our benefit as well.
>
>>>I haven't used OS-X much, but the Mac people I know swear by it, rather than
 
>>>at it (OS 9).  I have used OS 9 units pretty extensively, and they make WfWg
>>>look rock solid.
>>I know the Mac buffs I've had contact with loved many of the earlier Mac 
>>environments. I'll have to ask them about OS 9 in comparison.
>
>They also seem oddly tolerant.  I know several Mac users, they
>re-install OS 9 constantly (at least once a month).  They just kind of
>shrugged it off.  Windows users are furious every time they have to
>re-install, which is just an interesting phenomenon.  Might have
>something to do with how difficult the installs are.

>>...the diversity of UI's (CDE, OpenLook, Athena and other widget sets, 
>>KDE, Gnome, etcetera) and libaries to match... all this stuff is EXACTLY 
>>NLIKE what Apple wants to ...
>True,  but users would have the *option*, even if the rank-and-file
>wouldn't accept that option.  It would help powah usahs accept the
>platform.
That's right, but Apple may not wantto give people that option, since they
may see that it will reflect badly on the platform as a whole. Dumb? Cautious?
I think the latter.

>>This client-side dependence is the most dangerous thing, other than 
>>something like Palladium.
>Yep.  I remember two or three years ago when most of the news on
>Slashdot, etc... seemed good.  One closed the browser with a warm fuzzy
>optimism (or where those the benzene fumes from the new laser
>printer?).  Not these days.

The Empire is Striking Back. Not one company, but in general a reaction
to the notion of freedom (as in "unmetered") in digital media. We see it
in DRM, Palladium, the DMCA, and the mentality of security through some
proprietary means.
                                                   Regards,
                                                   ---> RGB <---