more on Opinions Re: Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips rumor on CNet

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeff Porten <civitan () jeffporten com>
Date: June 4, 2005 10:29:45 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: more on Opinions Re: [IP] Apple to ditch IBM, switch to  
Intel chips rumor on CNet


I've been a Macintosh consultant since 1993, and I've been doing  
professional work on Macs since 1985.  I've personally been in a  
hundred workplaces that were Mac shops, and through email discussions  
I'm familiar with the practice of thousands.

That is by way of introduction that I am constantly amazed by how  
wrongheaded some analysis of the Mac market can be.  This machine its  
own workflow affordances, and its own culture.  Most people who  
pontificate about the Macintosh market (yes, "market" -- not "die- 
hards" or "fanatics" unless choose to include your iMac-owning  
grandmother) completely miss what is self-evident to anyone who  
spends all day immersed in them.

That having been said....

On Jun 4, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Simon Higgs wrote:


> Apple's current strategy seems to be a repeat of NeXT's strategy.  
> Apple doesn't care about the Mac market. After all, most die-hard  
> Mac users are used to throwing everything away every time they  
> upgrade. And you know it's true.

Last week I got a client call from someone who wanted to know how to  
properly move files from his PowerMac 6100 (circa 1995) to a newer  
PowerComputing tower (circa God only knows).  If anything, Mac users  
are much more likely than Windows users to hang on to their old  
equipment until a power supply blows and the thing literally goes up  
in flames.  I personally have my first Mac, a Duo 210, in perfect  
working order, and it would be a regular-use computer if I could find  
a new battery for it.

Meanwhile, during a software audit for another client, I found  
applications on his computer that dated back to 1985.  Most of them  
were still functional.

The driving forces in acquiring new hardware tends not to be that old  
applications stop working, but rather that new applications want  
faster chips.  My current workhorse laptop can't display much of the  
eye candy in Tiger (and of course, Tiger gracefully degrades and  
continues working perfectly).  So I'll upgrade my laptop when I want  
a GPU card that can give me some of Tiger's Core Image benefits, such  
as resizing all of the windows of a single application to a specific  
percentage -- which would be quite useful on any laptop.


> My guess is that Apple is going to attack the Wintel market at the  
> software level. Users will get the "great Mac experience" (SIC) for  
> only $129. They simply buy a copy of Mac OS X for x86 and reformat  
> their existing machine. The next time the user upgrades their  
> hardware, they buy an Intel / Mac appliance. That's the theory. I  
> just don't see it working in practice without tremendous x86 driver  
> issues. Unless, as with NeXT, Apple drops their proprietary  
> hardware and ultimately becomes a software company.

Yes, we can see how successful that was for NeXT.

Apple has said, time and again, that they are in the hardware  
business.  And there is absolutely no question that Apple has the  
position they hold precisely because they make damn good hardware.   
My laptop, the 17" PowerBook, is two years old, and it is still  
literally impossible to go a day in Starbucks without having someone  
approach me to comment on its design.

This computer cost $3,300.  Tiger cost $130.  You can do the math on  
which sale is more profitable for Apple.


> Let's put this all in perspective. Apple excel at one thing really,  
> really well. It's the one thing that is historically constant  
> across all Apple product lines. Apple excel at losing market share.  
> What starts out as a captured market is lost to competition that  
> beats Apple every time on features and price.

Of course, in order to lose market share, you must first gain market  
share.

Let's put this all in the perspective of someone whose livelihood  
depends on Apple.  I do not care about Apple's market share.  Let me  
say that again.   I do not care about Apple's market share.

What I care about is having a steady stream of potential clients.   
The market share is more than wide enough for that, and will remain  
so as long as Apple continues making quality computers.

What I care about is Apple being profitable enough that no one will  
be concerned about the future existence of the Macintosh platform.   
That has not been a concern since Steve Jobs returned to the top seat.

It would be nice for my purposes if Apple's market share increased,  
since more Macs mean more potential clients.  But I do not want to  
see Mac OS making a run at the Windows monopoly.  I do not want to  
see the tarnishing of the reputation of Macintosh, as the web fills  
with thousands of complaints that Mac OS breaks when someone tries to  
run it on their PC that they assembled from Fry's parts.

And perhaps most importantly, I do not want to see my field flooded  
with incompetent consultants.  I frequently correct the mistakes of  
the Windows consultants I'm forced to work with, and I haven't done  
any serious Windows work since 1997.  Two years ago I solved a  
problem in 15 minutes that the official MS-certified consultant  
couldn't fix in two days.  As a niche market, I am generally able to  
assume that anyone calling themselves Macintosh-competent is in fact  
so.  Bump Mac market share up to 50% in a year, and suddenly I'll be  
fighting for exposure against 100,000 idiots who suddenly decide to  
call themselves Mac experts.


> Overpriced hardware and cool isn't nearly enough to retain market  
> share and this has been repeated over and over again with the  
> personal computer, the PDA (Newton), and the MP3 player (iPod).

I do not care about Apple's market share.  But I note that the iPod  
market is doing quite nicely, there are still people using Newtons (I  
sold mine two months ago, but I have another), and out here in the  
field, there are so many people using PowerBooks and iBooks at  
wireless hotspots that you would think they were given out for free  
in every Crackerjack box.

Back in the late 90s, I could go weeks without meeting a new  
Macintosh user.  Today, I can potentially pick up a client every time  
I go out for coffee.


> Apple's only chance of breaking the cycle is to capture the x86  
> market. But in doing so they risk repeating all the mistakes that  
> NeXT made.

Again, as someone who makes his living on Macs, I'm quite happy with  
the cycle they're on.  I'm now a de facto Unix guru because it was  
necessary to maintain my Mac skills.  I can augment my own or my  
clients' computing power starting at $500.  My laptop can run Mac,  
Classic Mac, Windows, X11, and Unix applications simultaneously.

And let's just say that the iMac G5, the PowerBook 17", and the iPod  
Shuffle are all just frickin' cool.  That still counts for something.

Best,
Jeff Porten


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/