Talk to me about Macs

[madd0ct0r]

or anything using iOS.

Until the windows 8 thread i hadn't realised they are much cheaper in america, but I'm still intrigued by what is it about the experience of use that encourages people to spend so much more and advocate apple so strongly?

Can you define the intangibles?

[Stark]

I'm not sure anyone is 'advocating' Apple as much as they are simply correcting misunderstanding of what constitutes 'best fit for role'.

Of course, being the expensive high profile option actually adds value itself, but that might be a bit too advanced.

[madd0ct0r]

it's over my head certainly.

are we talking about buying stuff just to show off?

[Stark]

Partly; being the most expensive option in a market brings a cachet to a product, but when it's also considered a feature leader or to have other positive attributes it adds to the effect. Apple doesn't need to race to the bottom on price because they are not a 'bargain' manufacturer.

For instance, when iPad was considered the 'best' tablet, other cheaper tablets appeared less desirable due to their perceived 'bargain' nature as inferior products. There's often a market advantage to intentionally setting out to be a top-shelf thing. I think Apple intentionally creates shortages to increase this effect at launch of new products.

[The Kernel]

Ok, I suppose I can field this. Understand first that my background is decidedly more PC than Mac--I probably went through 25+ homebuilt desktops over the years running whatever the latest version of Windows is. However, I've now pretty much exclusively moved over to Macs running OSX in my house for the following reasons.

• Design: I'm not talking about how "pretty" Macs are, I'm talking about usable and functional design choices. This didn't matter nearly as much to me when I was using desktops but now that I use a laptop pretty much exclusively with a Thunderbolt display when I'm at my desk, things like weight, battery life, screen, thickness, etc really matter. It's not that I think Apple laptops are perfect, it's more that I think they are the only ones that seem to be bothering to design a decent machine. For example I just can't buy a PC with the same combination of performance (high end Ivy Bridge, fast SSD, very decent GPU, 16GB+ of RAM), screen (nobody makes anything like the current IPS Retina displays on any PC laptop), trackpad (why the hell can't a PC maker produce a decent huge multi-touch trackpad?), battery life and thickness/weight that a MacBook Pro has.
• Flexibility versus simplicity: Macs tend to concentrate on what is important while sacrificing everything else. Yes, my Macbook Retina doesn't have an optical drive, it has zero upgradability and it has a limited selection of ports. Do I care? Not really. I accept the fact that some people might (my dad for example could NEVER use a Mac as he still needs things like SERIAL PORTS on his computers) but for me it works perfectly fine.
• Superior OS: I suppose this is a point of view, but I find Mac OSX to be superior in most ways to Windows. The real reasons for it have to do with things like much better window management (Mission Control/Expose is extremely useful and can be invoked with a flick), less bloat and better integration with the hardware (easy to do when you control the platform). It's also a POSIX OS which means it is a far superior development box if you do anything but Microsoft ecosphere programming (neutral stuff like Rails, Java/Scala, etc). This is no secret--virtually the entire developer community has been shifting over to OSX for years from Linux and Windows.
• Better Quality Apps: OSX developers are fewer but produce higher quality software. Sorry but this statement is just true and I would challenge anyone to show me Windows software that has the same quality level as stuff like OmniGraffle, Omniplan, Pixelmator, Sparrow, Undercover, Witness, DayOne, Pulp, etc. Mac developers also tend to release stuff at a rapid cadence that quickly takes advantage of new features (Mountain Lion was just released and already I've got updates for a ton of software with Retina support, new iCloud API support, Notification Center, etc). I realize that Apple's simplified platform makes this a lot easier to do but the underlying reason is irrelevant.
• Only Platform for iOS Dev: I suppose this goes without saying but it is an important point for some of us.
• Unique Ecosphere Features: If you buy into the Apple ecosphere there are some great features that you get out of it that either don't exist or are much less streamlined on the PC. Airplay screen mirroring to an Apple TV for example (has anyone else figured out how insanely useful this is?), Thunderbolt ubiquity (much better solution than docking stations ever were), Time Machine (great home backup solution, especially if you have a Time Capsule or even a 3rd Party NAS that supports it), Home Sharing, etc.

That said there are definitely a lot of things you give up on the Mac platform including not being a very good platform for gamers at all, shitty 3rd party peripheral support, limited upgradability and basically being at the mercy of Apple's roadmap (good thing I don't need a Mac Pro...those people got screwed). Also you tend to get the shorter end of the stick on cross platform software like Adobe CS (works fine on OSX but Windows still gets more development attention lately for largely political reasons), Microsoft Office (it's ok if you need it but it's not as good as its Windows brethren), etc. Also you get kind of spoiled by the native Cocoa apps and it becomes hard to use stuff that isn't designed around the Mac so tools like Eclipse feel pretty clunky.

I would say the biggest problem with Macs for most people is the starting price though. They aren't cheap, but for people who make their livelihood on a computer it makes a lot of sense.

As for iOS? Well I should think that would be easy to understand. I actually prefer Android personally (I use both for work reasons since I develop on both) but iOS has a number of advantages that are more about the failures of the Android ecosphere than any success of iOS.

• Android carrier/OEM bullshit: Whether it's delayed/no updates to the latest version of Android (most Android phones sold today still only support 2.3 while Google has already shipped 4.1!), carrier bloatware on the device that you can't uninstall, horrible OEM UI overlays or my personal favorite of carriers breaking features like NFC because they compete with their own solutions, Android is a fucking mess. Yes, the Nexus line of phones abstracts a lot of these drawbacks but they aren't exempt since you still can't unlock features like NFC on a Verizon Galaxy Nexus for example without hacking it and Verizon is STILL dragging their feat on the Jellybean rollout despite it being a "Pure Google" device (one of mine still hasn't received it but my identical GSM unlocked version got it on day 1).
• Android devs suck: Sorry but the software on Android is second-class. The game ports are fine (since they are 99% C++ NDK ported code) but everything else that isn't made by Google is half baked. iOS is clearly the priority for pretty much everyone.
• It sucks to BE an Android dev: I used to think Xcode sucked till I started seeing what the Android dev ecosphere looked like. Jesus where do I begin? Horrible tools, poor documentation, bad UI framework standardization (blessedly now fixed in 4.x), terrible emulators that has nothing like native speed and are borderline useless...no wonder nobody but Google makes decent Android software. Oh yeah, and the whole fragmentation thing--that's just SOOO much fun to deal with.

That all said, there is plenty I like about Android and in many ways I prefer it to iOS. The fact that the iPhone 4S has been stuck with a 3.5" screen since its inception isn't fun (sorry ghost of Steve, some of us actually LIKE big screens) and Android does do a better job on a number of features (notifications, multi-tasking, contact management, email) but the problem is that iOS has all the good software right now.

[The Kernel]

Two other notes about cost:

1) Macs are expensive relative to the ASP of PCs but they also don't compete in the same space. If you do a comparison of hardware, the Apple tax ranges from significant (~50% on a Mac Mini) to around 15% (Macbook Air is pretty comparable to the competition and the extra expense can usually be justified by the aluminum chassis and other high quality materials) to even a negative once in a while (before Xeon E5 workstations were released the Mac Pro was the cheapest workstation you could get without building your own...sadly they haven't done a hardware refresh). Also the 27" iMac is arguably a pretty decent deal too considering what you get--it's hard to measure some of these things against comparable PCs since a lot of PC makers simply don't ship the same stuff.

2) iOS devices are not more expensive for consumers in the US. The fact that iPhones cost more than Android phones is largely hidden from the US consumer (thanks to our postpaid contract model and the greed of our carriers) and iPads are priced just fine for what they are. You can find cheaper Android tablets (the Nexus 7 is awesome and only $200) but they also aren't the same class of hardware. If you spec out an Android tablet that is similar to the iPad (10" screen, high end CPU) the starting prices are shockingly similar despite the iPad having a number of advantages like the Retina screen (still not available in the Android world). Really the iPad is a pretty darn good deal in its base config and that is reflected by Apple not making near the margins they are used to on it.

That said, if you are in the market for a tablet for music, reading, browsing and light games? Get the Nexus 7. It's a screaming good deal and its got a fantastic form factor.

[Stark]

I find the perception that enthusiasts create around PCs (ie, upgrading, DIY, speccing out your megapixels, etc) is a motive for people to use other platforms. For people who don't tweak their HDD balance or adjust their mouse DPI, not having to worry about that shit is actually valuable to them. People can treat Apple machines like appliances that do things they want and understand, rather than hobby kits they need to interact with in a technical way regularly because their friend's son said to get the killbits.

[The Kernel]

I think it's more that computing is becoming more mobile (since laptops now have virtually the same performance as desktops in everything but gaming without being massive) and in that situation platforms like the Mac will always be superior since mobile plays to all of Apple's strengths and all of the Windows platform's weaknesses. It's not that I necessarily wanted my computer to be more appliance like, it's more that I value design elements a lot more when I have to lug it around and space is at a premium (3rd party peripherals aren't really a good option for laptops).

To put it another way, Windows machines could make up for a lot of their deficiencies because you could tweak the shit out of them just the way you liked it. That worked great as long as you had a nice big desk and didn't have to move your machine around much. Once you start talking about a computer that you carry with you all day from meeting to meeting but you also need to have very high performance and maximize productivity? Forget about the PC.

[Zaune]

Partly; being the most expensive option in a market brings a cachet to a product, but when it's also considered a feature leader or to have other positive attributes it adds to the effect. Apple doesn't need to race to the bottom on price because they are not a 'bargain' manufacturer.

For instance, when iPad was considered the 'best' tablet, other cheaper tablets appeared less desirable due to their perceived 'bargain' nature as inferior products. There's often a market advantage to intentionally setting out to be a top-shelf thing. I think Apple intentionally creates shortages to increase this effect at launch of new products.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds rather a lot like a long-winded way of saying that if you're a rich idiot who wants to impress other rich idiots, Apple is the brand for you.

[Terralthra]

I find it hilarious that anyone who values "good design" likes "a huge touchpad." Touchpads that aren't integrated into the screen are some of the worst pointing devices ever implemented. In a design space oriented around the best compromise between precision and accuracy, they have both shitty precision AND shitty accuracy, in all cases, Mac and not. There is not a single touchpad I've ever used, neither on a PC laptop, netbook, MBA, or MBP, that has allowed me to not bring a wireless mouse everywhere.

Touch-sensitive screens, such as implemented on smartphones and tablets, are tolerable, but not nearly as good as stylus-operated touchscreens such as on the mid-2000s tablet PCs sold by HP et al. And from a build quality and design standpoint, the HP TC-1100 was equal to or superior to modern tablets like the iPad in so many ways it's mildly hilarious. The only thing holding it back was the mediocre Windows XP Tablet edition and HP's own poor PR and Marketing competence.

[phongn]

I find it hilarious that anyone who values "good design" likes "a huge touchpad." Touchpads that aren't integrated into the screen are some of the worst pointing devices ever implemented. In a design space oriented around the best compromise between precision and accuracy, they have both shitty precision AND shitty accuracy, in all cases, Mac and not. There is not a single touchpad I've ever used, neither on a PC laptop, netbook, MBA, or MBP, that has allowed me to not bring a wireless mouse everywhere.

If you value good design, you want a big touchpad (that does proper palm rejection, multitouch, etc.) versus a tiny little one. You want relatively low resistance so it's easy to move around. You might not like a touchpad, but surely you can appreciate the difference between "good" and "not good" within the constraints of the touchpad itself?

Lets also make clear that it's your opinion that its a terrible interface. If you need pixel-precision, fine, use a mouse or trackball. Nobody is stopping you - and it turns out most tasks don't need such precision! What is it that you do that makes you prefer a high-precision input device? As a software developer, I generally prefer to not have to move my hands much to navigate: I find a TrackPoint is excellent for that but failing that a trackpad works well. Also, I don't see how decent trackpads are low-accuracy.

Touch-sensitive screens, such as implemented on smartphones and tablets, are tolerable, but not nearly as good as stylus-operated touchscreens such as on the mid-2000s tablet PCs sold by HP et al. And from a build quality and design standpoint, the HP TC-1100 was equal to or superior to modern tablets like the iPad in so many ways it's mildly hilarious. The only thing holding it back was the mediocre Windows XP Tablet edition and HP's own poor PR and Marketing competence.

First, direct-manipulation input is good enough for many uses that a stylus becomes unnecessary (handwritten note-taking, graphics work, etc. are obvious exceptions). Why bother with one if most tasks people will use a mobile device for doesn't need it? It's an unneeded constraint on design.

Secondly, it's ridiculous to separate a device from it's operating system. Are you seriously saying "X system would be good if only how you have to use it every day didn't suck!"

[phongn]

I find the perception that enthusiasts create around PCs (ie, upgrading, DIY, speccing out your megapixels, etc) is a motive for people to use other platforms. For people who don't tweak their HDD balance or adjust their mouse DPI, not having to worry about that shit is actually valuable to them. People can treat Apple machines like appliances that do things they want and understand, rather than hobby kits they need to interact with in a technical way regularly because their friend's son said to get the killbits.

Apple's "don't customize much" design is a direct reaction to the idiot 1990s where they produced every configuration under the sun and had to support and stock those parts. It cost them a fortune (and still costs Dell, HP, Lenovo, et. al.) Apple instead purchases relatively few things in enormous quantity, to the point where OEMs will actually build new factories for them! The result are, indeed, appliances with a few sensible options.

Lenovo's Design Matters blog once mentioned that they had to stop offering high-quality LCDs on ThinkPads because the display companies would only sell it in huge quantities, to the point where they might as well put it in every laptop. The cost was too high and that was the end of it then back then for Lenovo. Apple simply goes ahead and does what Lenovo would not and the market loves them for it. (The Verge reported on ill-fated Palm about much the same, except this time for smartphone cameras and how the OEMs essentially said "buy so much we'd build another factory. Apple does.").

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds rather a lot like a long-winded way of saying that if you're a rich idiot who wants to impress other rich idiots, Apple is the brand for you.

He's not saying that (but what you are saying is true). He's saying that Apple's design and marketing makes their products more desirable and thus people are willing to spend more on them. That feeds a virtuous cycle where Apple doesn't have the same "race to the bottom" pressure and can afford to put in better quality (and/or margins) into their product line.

[General Zod]

The biggest selling point for the MBA to me was how thin and light it was, and the fact that it could run Final Cut Pro. Having used a big ass gaming notebook for a few years I really didn't feel like lugging something that weighed 10 lbs through the airport in addition to all the other crap I had to carry. Plus I actually shopped around and got it used off ebay for about $700, so while you could buy a new one and pay out the ass but there's nothing saying you have to.

I've used netbooks before, and frankly their screens are just too fucking tiny to do anything meaningful on them. So they fit the "lightweight" requirement but fail at everything else.

[Block]

Partly; being the most expensive option in a market brings a cachet to a product, but when it's also considered a feature leader or to have other positive attributes it adds to the effect. Apple doesn't need to race to the bottom on price because they are not a 'bargain' manufacturer.

For instance, when iPad was considered the 'best' tablet, other cheaper tablets appeared less desirable due to their perceived 'bargain' nature as inferior products. There's often a market advantage to intentionally setting out to be a top-shelf thing. I think Apple intentionally creates shortages to increase this effect at launch of new products.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds rather a lot like a long-winded way of saying that if you're a rich idiot who wants to impress other rich idiots, Apple is the brand for you.

It's commonly called prestige pricing. It's the same thing that happens with luxury cars like the Lexus, which rolls off the exact same assembly line as the Toyota Avalon and costs $20k more. The manufacturer sets a higher price than the market should be willing to pay, but because of the name and people's desire to show off how special they are, the item still sells. Like someone said in the other thread, there are a number of companies that do this, Harley and Monster being two other well known examples.

[General Zod]

Partly; being the most expensive option in a market brings a cachet to a product, but when it's also considered a feature leader or to have other positive attributes it adds to the effect. Apple doesn't need to race to the bottom on price because they are not a 'bargain' manufacturer.

For instance, when iPad was considered the 'best' tablet, other cheaper tablets appeared less desirable due to their perceived 'bargain' nature as inferior products. There's often a market advantage to intentionally setting out to be a top-shelf thing. I think Apple intentionally creates shortages to increase this effect at launch of new products.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds rather a lot like a long-winded way of saying that if you're a rich idiot who wants to impress other rich idiots, Apple is the brand for you.

It's commonly called prestige pricing. It's the same thing that happens with luxury cars like the Lexus, which rolls off the exact same assembly line as the Toyota Avalon and costs $20k more. The manufacturer sets a higher price than the market should be willing to pay, but because of the name and people's desire to show off how special they are, the item still sells. Like someone said in the other thread, there are a number of companies that do this, Harley and Monster being two other well known examples.

What's funny is the same people who complain about Apple being overpriced are often the same people who go out and blow $2500 on a gaming PC in order to play ten year old games.

[Melchior]

Also you get kind of spoiled by the native Cocoa apps and it becomes hard to use stuff that isn't designed around the Mac so tools like Eclipse feel pretty clunky.

Concerning this, did you perhaps manage to avoid getting pixel doubled text in HiDPI mode in Eclipse?

[Melchior]

Monster being two other well known examples.

If you mean Monster cables, that's more of a scam than anything else - and somewhat popular one at that, since there are worse offenders.

[Stark]

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds rather a lot like a long-winded way of saying that if you're a rich idiot who wants to impress other rich idiots, Apple is the brand for you.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you have no ability to understand how other people think and what they value.

This may explain why you aren't a successful manufacturer with huge market and mindshare. :v. You don't have to compete in the simple sense of 'be cheaper' or 'have more gibbis', because there are other things people value, including things like prestige, perceived desirability, etc. It's arguable that solely competing on price drives the market to low-quality, poorly-supported shovelware as everyone cuts their margins and costs to get 'cheaper', and this has been true of the computer markets at various times.

Frankly anyone who thinks 'but it's the most expensive' isn't used as a positive at times by consumers must have their head in the sand. Just a month ago I had to hear someone talk about how their Galaxy Note must be at parity or superior to the S3 because it costs more. Consumers are not enthusiast fatties, and to reach that market you do different things.

[Tolya]

Macs are a lot like consoles (you know, Xbox, Playstation stuff). What they are meant to do, they do well. But I would strongly disagree with some of the points of this thread.

1) Some design choices are good, some of them are... well, I can't for the love of me figure them out. Magic Mouse is one example of a totally botched design in terms of ergonomics. Sure, it looks slick, but it is about as usable as a brick. Any of the more expensive Logitech or Microsoft mice will do loops around them. For one, you can't press both magic mouse "buttons" at the same time, because they are on a rocker, instead of being a separate sensors. And while OS X and Apple software has gotten around the problem by simply avoiding it, they are leaving out a practical input method in favor of

I have two Magic Mice on my desktop right now, one is for a MacBook that I can't put closer, the second one for an iMac (the 27 inch one) that I do some work on. If I would have the option to connect a single Magic Mouse to both of the machines at the same time, I would be thrilled (well, maybe there is a way, if there is, tell me by all means), but so far, no luck. But I guess none of the PC mice give you that option, to be fair about it. But at least they don't brag to be "designed the shit of".

But the one absolutely worst thing about a Magic Mouse is its size. I can't find a way to rest my hand comfortably on it, like I can on a good Logitech or Microsoft mouse (the latter is a cheap ripoff usually). So for a casual Starbucks browsing its ok, but try doing design work in Photoshop for 6 hours straight. My friend who is a web graphic designer after a few days put his magic mouse in the drawer and asked one of the IT guys for a simple, 5 year old cable logitech mouse which costs around 10 bucks new.

On the other hand, the small keyboard is a nice touch. When Im doing some PC building stuff, I actually like to connect the mac keyboard because of it's size, it just does not intrude as much as a full PC keyboard. It's put together nicely, typing on it is quite comfortable and its much more lightweight than the PC heavy lifters.

So, in short, some of the things Apple does well, some of the things it does not. The one thing that really fires me up as an Apple opposer is their smug attitude which for some reason makes it alright to charge people ridiculous amounts of cash for their products. Drop the smugness, lower the prices and you get a really decent hardware which is easy to use and accessible.

2) Programming. Well, maybe Poland is a different country, but I've yet to see a Mac programmer that's a real programmer. Not meaning to insult anybody, but at least over here, there is no "massive switching" of programmers to OS X. Programmers are knowledgeable animals which know their way around PC's quite well and actually enjoy all the pixel hunting involved in building and maintaining a PC. But Im in Poland where there are polar bears roaming the street and most americans probably don't know we have a coastline.

3) Zod, you are full of shit with your "2500$ per year" PC gaming rigs. You know damn well that you can put an excellent top of the line gaming desktop PC for slightly more than a grand, including a monitor. No current gen game takes benefit of the stuff that is happening GeForce GTX 690, which is bragware. Sad truth that PC fatties don't want to acknowledge is that you can put a decent gaming desktop for much less than a grand and a vintage GeForce 9800GT GPU and a Pentium Dual Core will get you through the most of the games with decent quality and no problems. The 2500$ PC guys/gals are doing the same thing their Apple counterparts are: they are purchasing bragging rights over a bunch of smugware.

I complain about Macs being overpriced and I DON'T spend 2500$ a year on PC gaming rigs.

4) OS X is quite good for an operating system, but it does have it's faults. In this way, its similar to Windows 7. There are things about OS X which are much worse than Windows, Finder is one example. Personally, I much more prefer the way Windows handles the windows. But that one might be just that I am used to it.

The thing I really like about OS X is that it is, for the most part, hassle free. Your clueless grandma would be able to operate it, but a run-of-the-mill windows 7 would give her problems. Installation is a breeze: you just point it to a partition, wait 10 minutes (or less, did a Lion installation on a brand new iMac today and I didn't even notice when it finished) and you're done.

Mountain Lion is also very cheap: currently it costs around 15 euros. But don't believe the crap Apple is selling about it being "virus free". Just because Apple had a small market share and no one even bothered to write viruses for it doesn't mean that it is immune. Apple is reaching the market share at which some bad people are starting to take a look at OS X and the ways to break it. Dark days lie ahead, especially that Mac users are not accustomed to fending off malware and scamware.

5) There is this thing going about a 27'' iMac screen being "beautiful". Yes, it is an IPS LCD which is quite impressive when you look at it for the first time. But imagine my surprise today when I came into my room and the thing was booting up. Viewing the monitor from an angle, there were huge black spots which looked like mold on the LCD. Excuse me, but you will not find anything like that on a used Dell U2311 that I got for about 150 bucks. Also, the LCD has shiny surface.

I like Block's comparison of Lexus/Toyota, there is a lot of truth in it. Under the hood, these are almost the same cars. PC's and Macs are more similar when you look at the overall picture than any of the Apple/PC fatboys will ever admit. The pricing policy of Apple is a little surprising at this point.

[Tolya]

Macs are a lot like consoles (you know, Xbox, Playstation stuff). What they are meant to do, they do well. But I would strongly disagree with some of the points of this thread.

1) Some design choices are good, some of them are... well, I can't for the love of me figure them out. Magic Mouse is one example of a totally botched design in terms of ergonomics. Sure, it looks slick, but it is about as usable as a brick. Any of the more expensive Logitech or Microsoft mice will do loops around them. For one, you can't press both magic mouse "buttons" at the same time, because they are on a rocker, instead of being a separate sensors. And while OS X and Apple software has gotten around the problem by simply avoiding it, they are leaving out a practical input method in favor of

I have two Magic Mice on my desktop right now, one is for a MacBook that I can't put closer, the second one for an iMac (the 27 inch one) that I do some work on. If I would have the option to connect a single Magic Mouse to both of the machines at the same time, I would be thrilled (well, maybe there is a way, if there is, tell me by all means), but so far, no luck. But I guess none of the PC mice give you that option, to be fair about it. But at least they don't brag to be "designed the shit of".

But the one absolutely worst thing about a Magic Mouse is its size. I can't find a way to rest my hand comfortably on it, like I can on a good Logitech or Microsoft mouse (the latter is a cheap ripoff usually). So for a casual Starbucks browsing its ok, but try doing design work in Photoshop for 6 hours straight. My friend who is a web graphic designer after a few days put his magic mouse in the drawer and asked one of the IT guys for a simple, 5 year old cable logitech mouse which costs around 10 bucks new.

On the other hand, the small keyboard is a nice touch. When Im doing some PC building stuff, I actually like to connect the mac keyboard because of it's size, it just does not intrude as much as a full PC keyboard. It's put together nicely, typing on it is quite comfortable and its much more lightweight than the PC heavy lifters.

So, in short, some of the things Apple does well, some of the things it does not. The one thing that really fires me up as an Apple opposer is their smug attitude which for some reason makes it alright to charge people ridiculous amounts of cash for their products. Drop the smugness, lower the prices and you get a really decent hardware which is easy to use and accessible.

2) Programming. Well, maybe Poland is a different country, but I've yet to see a Mac programmer that's a real programmer. Not meaning to insult anybody, but at least over here, there is no "massive switching" of programmers to OS X. Programmers are knowledgeable animals which know their way around PC's quite well and actually enjoy all the pixel hunting involved in building and maintaining a PC. But Im in Poland where there are polar bears roaming the street and most americans probably don't know we have a coastline.

3) Zod, you are full of shit with your "2500$ per year" PC gaming rigs. You know damn well that you can put an excellent top of the line gaming desktop PC for slightly more than a grand, including a monitor. No current gen game takes benefit of the stuff that is happening GeForce GTX 690, which is bragware. Sad truth that PC fatties don't want to acknowledge is that you can put a decent gaming desktop for much less than a grand and a vintage GeForce 9800GT GPU and a Pentium Dual Core will get you through the most of the games with decent quality and no problems. The 2500$ PC guys/gals are doing the same thing their Apple counterparts are: they are purchasing bragging rights over a bunch of smugware.

I complain about Macs being overpriced and I DON'T spend 2500$ a year on PC gaming rigs.

4) OS X is quite good for an operating system, but it does have it's faults. In this way, its similar to Windows 7. There are things about OS X which are much worse than Windows, Finder is one example. Personally, I much more prefer the way Windows handles the windows. But that one might be just that I am used to it.

The thing I really like about OS X is that it is, for the most part, hassle free. Your clueless grandma would be able to operate it, but a run-of-the-mill windows 7 would give her problems. Installation is a breeze: you just point it to a partition, wait 10 minutes (or less, did a Lion installation on a brand new iMac today and I didn't even notice when it finished) and you're done.

Mountain Lion is also very cheap: currently it costs around 15 euros. But don't believe the crap Apple is selling about it being "virus free". Just because Apple had a small market share and no one even bothered to write viruses for it doesn't mean that it is immune. Apple is reaching the market share at which some bad people are starting to take a look at OS X and the ways to break it. Dark days lie ahead, especially that Mac users are not accustomed to fending off malware and scamware.

5) There is this thing going about a 27'' iMac screen being "beautiful". Yes, it is an IPS LCD which is quite impressive when you look at it for the first time. But imagine my surprise today when I came into my room and the thing was booting up. Viewing the monitor from an angle, there were huge black spots which looked like mold on the LCD. Excuse me, but you will not find anything like that on a used Dell U2311 that I got for about 150 bucks. Also, the LCD has shiny surface.

I like Block's comparison of Lexus/Toyota, there is a lot of truth in it. Under the hood, these are almost the same cars. PC's and Macs are more similar when you look at the overall picture than any of the Apple/PC fatboys will ever admit. The pricing policy of Apple is a little surprising at this point.

[General Zod]

3) Zod, you are full of shit with your "2500$ per year" PC gaming rigs. You know damn well that you can put an excellent top of the line gaming desktop PC for slightly more than a grand, including a monitor. No current gen game takes benefit of the stuff that is happening GeForce GTX 690, which is bragware. Sad truth that PC fatties don't want to acknowledge is that you can put a decent gaming desktop for much less than a grand and a vintage GeForce 9800GT GPU and a Pentium Dual Core will get you through the most of the games with decent quality and no problems. The 2500$ PC guys/gals are doing the same thing their Apple counterparts are: they are purchasing bragging rights over a bunch of smugware.

I don't think you actually read my post, get back to me when you pull your head out of your ass.

[Stark]

Wrong thread bro. This is the one thats about explaining market segmentation and consumer needs and perception.

[phongn]

2) Programming. Well, maybe Poland is a different country, but I've yet to see a Mac programmer that's a real programmer. Not meaning to insult anybody, but at least over here, there is no "massive switching" of programmers to OS X. Programmers are knowledgeable animals which know their way around PC's quite well and actually enjoy all the pixel hunting involved in building and maintaining a PC. But Im in Poland where there are polar bears roaming the street and most americans probably don't know we have a coastline.

Actually, not a few programmers dislike having to deal with the minutiae of building and maintaining a PC. It's annoying bullshit that takes time away from getting real work done. In the US, OSX has pretty much taken over huge swathes of academic computer science (since it's more-or-less UNIX with a 'just works' interface). If you look at some of the videos for the landing of the Mars Science Lander Curiosity, you'll see it's about half-MBP and half-ThinkPad (and if that's not real work ...) Huge swathes of the 'Web 2.0' guys in San Francisco and Silicon Valley also moved over to Mac, too. The mix tends to be Linux-in-the-cloud and OSX on the development laptop.

EDIT: Not to be an ass, but the US is a wealthier country than Poland and can afford to splurge on "buy the best for developers" philosophy; I suspect most Polish firms just can't do that and have to compromise somewhere.

4) OS X is quite good for an operating system, but it does have it's faults. In this way, its similar to Windows 7. There are things about OS X which are much worse than Windows, Finder is one example. Personally, I much more prefer the way Windows handles the windows. But that one might be just that I am used to it.

OSX's windowing philosophy is document-centric; Windows traditionally has been application-centric (though NT 6.X moves it towards a middle ground now with the improved taskbar). They're different ideas of interaction and you're probably just used to the Windows way.

There is this thing going about a 27'' iMac screen being "beautiful". Yes, it is an IPS LCD which is quite impressive when you look at it for the first time. But imagine my surprise today when I came into my room and the thing was booting up. Viewing the monitor from an angle, there were huge black spots which looked like mold on the LCD. Excuse me, but you will not find anything like that on a used Dell U2311 that I got for about 150 bucks. Also, the LCD has shiny surface.

It is pretty beautiful, but you're right that there's plenty of excellent matte Dell IPS displays (I have two 2209WAs, and the U2311 was nowhere near that price when new, so that's a bit unfair!)

I like Block's comparison of Lexus/Toyota, there is a lot of truth in it. Under the hood, these are almost the same cars. PC's and Macs are more similar when you look at the overall picture than any of the Apple/PC fatboys will ever admit. The pricing policy of Apple is a little surprising at this point.

Why is it surprising? Apple positions themselves as a premium product and the market has accepted that place. Going for a low-margin race-to-the-bottom pricing strategy would destroy the company.

[Block]

I like Block's comparison of Lexus/Toyota, there is a lot of truth in it. Under the hood, these are almost the same cars. PC's and Macs are more similar when you look at the overall picture than any of the Apple/PC fatboys will ever admit. The pricing policy of Apple is a little surprising at this point.

Why is it surprising? Apple positions themselves as a premium product and the market has accepted that place. Going for a low-margin race-to-the-bottom pricing strategy would destroy the company.

That is where you're missing the point. The point I've made before and will continue to make is that people who pay premium prices for a name are morons. I'm not arguing that it doesn't work, it clearly does and always has, it does with wine, cars, computers, all kinds of shit. That humans are easily maniplulated apes is pretty obvious. Also don't give me this "the experience" garbage, douchey hipsters, Apple's biggest market, don't buy things for the experience, they buy it to show off.

[Stark]

Indeed, people simultaneously complaining about Apple markup and failing to understand their positioning is pretty bizarre. Thats their whole strategy!

The document/application UI focus is the only thing anyone I've known moving between the two has any trouble with. I personally prefer the fixed, changing bar to the individual bars, but with the search function it's not too relevant. Unless you learnt windows in 1998 and refuse to ever change, bu Apple doesn't want or need to sell to those people.

Hey block every time you say 'Apples market is showpff hipsters' you not only demonstrate your ignorance and bigotry but put the brakes on discussion.