Steve Jobs And The Oh-So-Cool iMac 1170
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip. You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use. They don't really care how much heavy breathing they generate in the media or among excitable teenagers and college students. Those two companies have, in fact, dominated their environments by pointedly focusing on the non-technologically adventurous middle-class and busy business executives and workers and by presenting themselves not as cool but as reliable and accessible. And for this sin they get jeered at -- all the way to the bank. Their motives may be money, greed and power, but they understand what really drives technology in America and much of the world. Steve Jobs does not.
The tech media have served as enablers and co-dependents in Steve Jobs' sometimes-brilliant marketing impulses. Last week, the volatile Jobs projected himself onto the cover of Time magazine by unveiling the oh-so-cool new iMac, a computer as entertainment/culture center, a "hub for music, pictures and movies." It's elegant and affordable, says Time, and takes up little desk space, "but will millions of PC users get it?"
Probably not.
Gates understands something Jobs and media don't. When it comes to technology, it's middle-class consumers and their tastes, needs and expectations that determine success or failure. This is a hard lesson for many hackers and programmers too, who remain bewildered that superior systems like Linux aren't on every desktop. But the middle class, for years abused and exploited by the arrogant tech industry (just think of what poor Comcast subscribers have been going through for weeks now), wants easy of use, safety, utility. Just consider at the telephone, the automobile, or for that matter, Wal-Mart. Apple has demonstrated for years, and so, to some degree, has Linux. Harry and Martha in Dubuque decide which products will enter the mainstream and last, not college kids editing movies or downloading music and DVDs, or using firewire ports to fiddle with video clips.
Apple, perenially aspiring to coolness, has always been the favorite computer of the non-hacker hip and the creative. And of many people (like me) whose entry onto the Net and Web has been made easier for the first programming language that really made sense to non-techies. Jobs' colorful, well-designed, fun and entertainment-centered iMacs and Powerbooks have been getting fabulous press for years. His idea to fuse the desktop with pop culture is, in fact, a powerful one. But it's too soon. The middle-class isn't ready for that. Most Americans don't need the 1,000 songs the iPod can store, and would rather go to the megaplex than edit movies on their computers.
So Apple accounts for only 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales, according to Gartner Dataquest.
That's probably because Jobs hasn't addressed the central problem facing computer makers: the public doesn't trust them. Burned by years of outrageously poor tech support, increasingly expensive software, and hardware that's almost instantly outdated, middle-class consumers aren't the least bit interested in the coolest new new thing. They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year. The public is increasingly wise to tech scams like hardware that's obsolete every 18 months and software that doesn't even last that long. Computers -- even the jazzy new iMac -- are a long way from reliability, and are profoundly mistrusted. In fact, it was only a couple of years ago that the candy-colored iMacs were the next cool thing. Now they're about as hip as Windows 98.
If you're a teenager, Web designer, film editor or visual arts major, or even a loving Grandma, it's great that the iMac allows you to create your own DVDs, organize and edit digital pictures, play CDs or convert MP3's, turn home videotapes into high-quality edited films. What's less clear is whether or not the public -- especially that critical middle-class chunk of it -- wants to do those things on a computer, or is confident about its ability to use machinery that's still more complicated and problematic than its makers seem able to admit.
For nearly a generation now, from Jobs to the makers of instant replay TV machines, some of the best minds in the tech world -- usually the younger ones -- have been crippled and misled by the confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful, between what's neat and what's necessary. The survivors of the Net's first generation -- brilliant plodders like Gates and Steve Case -- understand quite well that they aren't the same thing, and have, as a result, increasingly come to dominate the Net.
Total gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think its a stretch to for Jobs to concede that MS won the operating system war - thats why he is trying to fight the total user experience war - something MS can't do unless it wants to start making boxes.
I think Jobs is an egomaniac, but he's also driven by some very appealing ideas about consumer computing, and I'd take his strategy over Katz's punditry any day of the week.
Ease of Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool PC's and laptop draw additional users. But, it's not all about that at Apple. They're trying to put together the easiest to use and most powerful system that they can (at the same time). That's the hard part. The growth of Mac seems inevitable as it becomes as BSD box with the coolest hardware and the most capabilities.
It is not understanding PC users that brings Gates to the top. It is the fact that he uses monopolistic powers and bully tactics to force people and competitors to use his sytems. Maybe Steve Jobs just isn't that mean.
P.S. I'm not a Mac user... but, I may be one soon.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:0, Insightful)
Linux isn't focusing on design either, and what is it's market share?
Ease of use (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder, how can anyone think that windows is "easy to use" compared to MacOS? Or "more reliable"???? At least for the 3.11/95/98 series, which is what we are talking about.
The only thing I can see is the power of a good marketing deparment...
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the point. My coworkers' reactions were "woah, takes up such little space, i need one." and "dvd burning and a g4 with monitor for $1800? I'm sold."
My reaction: "perhaps i don't need a second powerbook, when this imac would be portable enough for touring with."
It's a great piece of design. Those who value their living space (like those of us here in NYC) will eat it up. Those who want affordable dvd burning and video editing love it. Those in the market for a "nearly portable" are also gaga for it.
A computer can be a work of art too, you know.
.
Consumer Tastes Bland? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely there is a feedback loop between users' tastes and the paradigms presented by technology companies. I find it hard to believe that the "beige minitower" form factor somehow taps into the a priori sense of what's best. It's simply what's been successful from a market penetration standpoint. I'd hate to imagine a computer industry without Jobs and Apple pushing out the edge of the envelope.
And when Utility is a commodity? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do think PCs are reaching a commodity level for the thinks most people do, and if trust of computer makers is an issue, it cuts everyone, there is no uniqueness to Apple focusing on design.
So I think, as PCs are more of a commodity, the design is going to be a key differentiator, just as the Cola wars are not about nutrition (potable utility) but about taste and preference - so maybe Apple is a bit ahead of the commodifying of PCs, but better design is definitely going to be an increasing part of how consumers make decisions. (They all surf the web, and they all crash, so I'll take the pretty one.) This is a good way to try and fight off the fact that M$ is the conventional wisdom (They all surf the web, they all crash, so I'll get what everyone else did...)
wake up and smell the price tag (Score:2, Insightful)
Both run Office. Both access the 'net. Both play music. Both can probably edit video to a limited extent.
Which one are you going to buy?
Apple's Position (Score:4, Insightful)
I like it (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe this misses the point ... (Score:4, Insightful)
* He focuses on marketshare, not profitability. Apple has been profitable for the past several years (with the exception of this one) and even when they were bleeding red ink they never has less than $2 billion in the bank. As long as Apple remains profitable, they remain successful. And they're on track to be profitable in 2002.
* Yes, mediocrity (good-enough) generally wins out in the marketplace, but there is always room for a deluxe, well-made product. Apple's analogy about BMW is relevant here. Furthermore, there are a lot of companies (Compaq, Gateway) that have followed roughly the same path as Microsoft and AOL and are fighting for survival. Business likes boring, but business is not the be-all and end-all of the market, and boring will not guarantee you life.
* Most importanly, Apple's emphasis is not on what is coolest, but on what is easiest for the consumer. That's the point of the Digital hub strategy. That's the point of the original iMac with no floppy drive and only USB connectors. That's the point of iPhoto, iTunes, i* etc.
* And, a little off-topic (but a general misconception)
I don't dislike Katz, but I do think he often has some very basic perception problems. Either that or he's just taking a positon to spark discussion.
--Jieves
Re:Ease of Use (Score:2, Insightful)
you don't think that UNIX (in the guise of OS X) is reliable?
OS X is certainly easy to use.
.
Porsches, BMWs and Lexuses oh my (Score:4, Insightful)
My dodge Neon gets me to work just fine, but that doesn't mean I don't want a Porsche.
Jobs knows what he's doing, he's creating a brand not just a computer. Function is important, but don't think for a second that image doesn't count.
"Elegant, floppy-free, and doomed" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fact is that the original iMac was the single most successful personal computer model in history, and it pretty much saved Apple. I'd say that this is proof that Apple Does Get It, in a way that most columnists apparently don't. Look, Apple will never take over the world, and we Macheads know that. That's okay. What matters is that Apple keeps making the world's best computers, and enough people (4.5% is a small slice of a really enormous pie, and that's okay too) keep buying them so they stay in business.
Oh yeah
What Jobs understands... (Score:5, Insightful)
What peeves me is that whenever one of the PC makers releases a new piece of hardware, it's all about the specs. When Apple releases something, it's held to a much higher standard. Apple brought the GUI, the floppy, easy networking, design, USB, etc., to the mass market, and now has brought Unix to the masses as well (and it's partially open sourced).
Katz, if you want to feed the monopoly that keeps you down, fine.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time someone said 'wow, I had a great burger yesterday?' - Mickey D's might make more money, be in more cities, may even be the staple food of millions, but no-one can ever say that THAT is the sole benchmark of success.
Jobs has a very different view of success, as was pointed out in a very insightful article by Bob Cringely. [pbs.org] Mac & Linux users (deluded though we may be) choose not to use PCs or Windows because we prefer something which is different.
And let's not forget, you use a computer to do a job, you eat food to do a job (keep you alive). Linux or Apple may be a niche market, and might stay that way - but don't accuse Steve Jobs of FAILING, or of NOT UNDERSTANDING what he does, anymore than you criticise your favourite restaurant for not being a huge multi-national burger bar.
PC market is not an election (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats because only one person can win the election. The Mac is a product in a diverse market - Apple makes money, has a load of cash in the bank, and has loyal users. What are they missing?
They have in fact succeeded by not going after the middle of the market, where they would have been creamed.
Maybe I'm trolling... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"ONLY 4.5%" (Score:2, Insightful)
Jobs knows that middle America runs the show (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, like any large corporation, has a culture of its own. The culture at Apple favors certain things. It places a value on aesthetics and on how people interact with their computers. It places a value on taking risks in order to push new technologies (some of which Apple invented, like Firewire [apple.com] and others, like USB [usb.org] that it didn't). It places a higher value on originality and elegance than on following established norms.
A company with such a culture will never rule the world. It will never defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. It will never unseat Dell. But it doesn't have to. In order to grow and prosper, Apple just has to keep its customer base happy. Its customer base is not Ma and Pa Gateway.
For better or for worse, the people who like Apple products tend to actually enjoy using their computers. They don't usually care about whether they can play any one of 10,000 available PC games. They simply want a computer that allows them to accomplish things and to have fun while doing those things.
As long as Apple can keep providing products that innovate in favor of the user, they'll do just fine, and the rest of the industry will continue to use them as an R & D lab.
Computers != Cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Contrary to cars, computers become more and more useful if they are compatible. Most people i know like the Mac, but would never buy one because everybody else has Windows and they wouldn't be able to share documents and software with these people (they think).
Cars are independent, they get you from A to B, and that's it.
At least that's the way I see it.
Holes, Holes, Holes (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm growing increasingly weary of Jon Katz. It used to be that I just had difficulty following his trains of thought, and I attributed it to a lack of focus on my part. But when I actually sit down and try to concentrate on what he's written, I realize that it's both lazy and contradictory.
This article is like so many of his others: it makes broad, sweeping statements phrased in such a way as to imply that there is no room for argument; that the ideas Katz presents are not to be questioned, that they are merely given. It feels like the article is merely an outline of what could be a decent paper. But it would have to be filled in with real research and facts, rather than, you know, kind of a feeling, sorta.
It bugs me that he states that the iMac has not reached the mainstream, without acknowledging that Time Magazine is about as mainstream as it gets. He even points out that Grandma likes playing with the iMac-- how can a computer reach a broader audience than that segment of the population who have the least experience with and the most apprehension about computers?*
(*Look. I just made a statement based on nothing more than an idea that maybe sounds about right-ish, because it fits the point I want to make. It's JUST THAT EASY.)
It sounds like Katz is coming up with his conclusion, then trying to bend the facts to support it, rather than more appropriate opposite.
I'm not trolling, damnit. I'm just grouchy.
Re:"ONLY 4.5%" (Score:1, Insightful)
What...is...the...point? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, what is the point? What are we, the readers, supposed to take away from this article? For most of my life, I've felt like I have above average reading comprehension skills, but I'm having trouble figuring out the point here. Let's see...I've read it twice now...nope, no point. Lots of words with no meaning. Not a single enlightening bit of information discerned. Why? Because the article contradicts itself.
Apple (and Jobs, by proxy I suppose) brought the consumers the gift of accessible computers, but Jobs doesn't understand what keeps the technology industry moving.
Katz, what are you saying? Jobs in an idiot or he's a genius? Are you saying anything at all? Is there an opinion here, or just someone's retelling of things that could possibly be construed as something resembling facts? "His idea to fuse the desktop with pop culture is, in fact, a powerful one. But it's too soon." "If you're a teenager, Web designer, film editor or visual arts major, or even a loving Grandma, it's great that the iMac allows you to create your own DVDs, organize and edit digital pictures, play CDs or convert MP3's, turn home videotapes into high-quality edited films."
But for all the wasted verbage, the article finally wraps it up at the end: What's cool isn't necessarily what sells. God damn, Katz. You're a genius.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
With that comment, you reveal your position: a PC person, bent on MHz, MHz, MHz.
Apple is positioning it's machines-at least it's iMac line- as "information appliances" now. Tools for certain jobs. Who cares how fast an information appliance is, as long as it's fast enough to do it's job?
I doubt anyone is going to use one of these machines for any intense number crunching, or as a hardcore gaming rig. It's for using iPhoto, or IMovie, or iTunes, etc. For those purposes - the "digital entertainment hub" - it will work fine, look nice in your den and not take up too much space. And that's all Apple intended it to do.
Whether or not it will be a mainstream success, that remains to be seen.
Who needs cool design? (Score:2, Insightful)
The new iMac is basically a story about useful design. Easy to upgrade, highly adjustable display, easy to do "stuff" with. Now why do people buy all those digital cams and camcorders? This makes them useful for 'non-geeks': brilliant.
What are we objecting to here? It's not a funky colour (it's white). Do you REALLY think that a computer has to look like a bit of test equipment?
Most "older" folks hate the cable tangle behind a PC, they hate the complex connecters (most of which you don't need anymore). They hate the system box. This is a computer as easy to live with as a lamp! Lets be honest, good design is more than "neeto" stuff, it makes the product BETTER. Who honestly enjoys the sharp edges when they upgrade their PC's RAM? Or the mess inside? Or all those cables?
Sure iMac isn't for everyone - that's why Apple make other Macs, but for many people it is a much better beast than a PC.
Why even hackers have been seen using Mac OS X! Gates's idea of design is XP - think about that for a moment.
Sorry but iMac is cool for Moms and Pops everywhere not just kid sisters! Who doesn't want to be able to find their photos, make the film they've shot watchable? Even iTunes, who's too old to enjoy music?
Re:Total gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that you won't concede that computing is developing niche markets. Something I would have though linux users would have been able to appreciate implicitly.
The logic is quite simple - Jobs understood that Apple was going to get creamed competing head-to-head with MS. There is no doubt of that. So he moved Apple into a new market - stylish, highly integrated hardware and software that aim to extend the computing experience outside of the OS.
As a result, Apple is making out just fine. Financially they are sound. They have great products and are creating an appealing product vision with their retail outlets (which admittedly are a loss leader).
They've found a way to survive against MS. Whats the problem??
Re:"Elegant, floppy-free, and doomed" ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe this misses the point ... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if I were to go with a new Mac (as much as I may want to; the i* suite is REALLY compelling to me right now), I'd have to REBUY hundreds of dollars worth of software.
And on top of the cost of the new Mac, that just isn't something I can stomach right now.
Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's TV users get all kinds of great features, including color images, CRTs that warm up in seconds instead of minutes, "big" screens, cable-delivered signals with great "reception" on hundreds of channels, stereo sound (or better), the ability to rent and watch movies (*ahem*), the ability to instantly watch whatever's on pay-per-view. Even just from a UI point of view, we now get (and expect!) wireless remote controls for everything, on-screen displays, and finally no more need to twist the channel selector knob violently to get past that annoying block of UHF stations that your antenna can't pull in!
I'm not going to make a list of all the "innovations" that have come from Apple, but I'll mention my favorite. Before the PowerBooks came out, portable PCs all had their keyboard at the front edge of the 'bottom' part of the case. The PowerBooks moved the keyboard to the back, creating a wrist rest area, much better in-flight ergonomics, and a better place to locate the pointing device (trackball in this case).
Was it revolutionary? No. Did Steve Jobs stand up and call it the coolest thing ever? No. But innovation comes in all kinds of sizes and shapes. Someone will always be innovating, and it's a good thing. Besides, if no one innovates, we'll be stuck forever with what we have now - eewww.
-Mark
Re:Total gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
What Katz is saying is that McDonalds is more successful (with success defined, I assume, as profits) than a 5* Michelin-approved restaurant. From a purely profit standpoint McDonalds is the champion. BUT, as you so rightly point out, there's more to something than necc. who makes the *most* money.
I assume that most 5* eateries do well enough to keep their staff employed, their investers happy and those that appreciate fine dining happy.
The same goes for Ford vs. Lamborguini (a spelling hatched job), or any other mass market vs. high end product.
I personally have some tastes that are more center of the road (therefore own stuff that lots of other folks own) and some that are more unique. I think that everyone does. So Apple markets a machine that appeals to me. I ask Mr. Katz, what's wrong with that?
Re:Ease of use (Score:1, Insightful)
You're basically turning down a Porsche in exchange for a Yugo because "I'm used to the way the Yugo shifts".
Re:PC market is not an election (Score:4, Insightful)
They have in fact succeeded by not going after the middle of the market, where they would have been creamed.
They're missing the middle of market, where they are being creamed. You can see right into a company's marketing strategy by its ad campaign--in Apple's case, lots of horizontal marketing: TV ads, corporate stores at the mall, cheesy magazines, etc. Their bread and butter right now is that loyal user base in the design space, but who wants all of their eggs in one basket? Jobs wants a mac on Joe and Tina Everyday's desk, and hasn't been able to pull it off with the flash, glamour, expense, and proprietary nature of the Mac line.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? It terms of market share yes, but technologically no. OS X is a big step forward, and a whole other component of the iMac's utility and cool. Plus Apple is still shipping millions of PC's a year -- with similar revenues as Gateway, but a far better balance sheet.
I think Katz's gibberish about the "middle-class" is wrong is not because the tech industry has overlooked them, or is trying to be 31337 kewl. Katz is wrong to think that misguided tech notions of cool are what cause Harry and Martha Homeowner to be overlooked. The reason the middle class is a hard sell is because personal computers are still a nascent technology. The technology hasn't evolved to the point where it is totally acceptable or suited to everyone. Our culture hasn't evolved to place the proper niche for computers in the home. After twenty-five years of the PC, we still have a way to go. When the automobile was twenty-five, black utilitarian Model T's ruled the rutted dirt roadways. A quarter century since PC's first appeared, beige utilitarian Windows boxes clog our mostly narrow-band information superhighway.
Mister Katz, I think you over estimate the tech sector's ability to provide palatable innovation for new technologies. That's an easy way out to explain so much failure when Microsoft is dominant in fulfilling network effected utilitarian need. I also think you under estimate Harry and Martha from Dubuque. They will make changes in their daily lives as they find ways that computing is personally useful to them. They will find new ways of exploiting the computer for themselves. It just takes time, and we've only just gotten started. Superior form factors, better devices, better interfaces, and better platforms will eventually restore diversity to the tech sector, just as it has for automobiles. Along the way, our culture and economy will change along with it.
Regards,
Reid
Brittany Spears and Market Share (Score:2, Insightful)
Market share isn't relavant anymore. Probably never was. The market is growing up as consumer taste gets more sophisticated. Let's see who can survive the next ten years. Can half the PC vendors out there? I don't think so unless they can find some way to become more than just box-makers....Apple knows this and that's why I'll count them in the race ten years from now.
The Main Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I own 3 computers. An iMac (333), an AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, and an AMD 700 Duron, respectively running OS 9.1, Win2000, and OpenBSD. I try not to be too biased, however, every operating system has it's bugs, that's a part of life.
To get my computers working, no, I didn't have to crack the cases, play around with PCI/AGP cards, until I decided that I wanted to completely overhaul my system, replacing motherboard/processor/video card. I've upgraded every one of my systems, and even from the hardware standpoint, they each have their drawbacks.
The iMac's case is a pain in the ass to work in. I've upgraded it to 192MB of RAM and a 30GB HD. It's nearly impossible to do so, and I've probably voided the warranty in the process, although it's too old to still have a valid one. It works great. As my router.
The 1.2GHz machine's case is a nice, new Enlight case. It's a breeze to work in, and about the only drawback is that it's so big and open, I often wonder where I want to put things, and how many more fans I can put in there. It's great, as my gaming PC.
The 700MHz machine is part of an old barebones system I got from a seedy vender at a computer show. It's got a crappy case, although you have some room, there isn't too much. I use it for running all sorts of random n*x experiments on it.
Now, as far as your average home user, what would I recommend? Well, it depends. If you want a cheap, relatively easy to use, vaguely stable system, sure, buy a cheap PC. You can get a PC, and everything you need to go online, check your e-mail, surf the web a bit, write the occasional document and print it. If you want some more stability, but don't mind jacking the price up, then sure, get a mac.
However, most of us here on slashdot are also part of a "niche market." We're the overclockers, power-users, computer geeks who love tweaking the systems in any way possible. What I would buy for myself, I'll most likely never recommend for my mother to use.
As far as ease-of-use, well, it's a learned habit. If you start out on Windows, sure, it'll take some work to get to use Macs. The reverse is also true. Personally, I don't like the look of the new iMac. Just by seeing it on the computer, I can tell that if I had one, and I wanted to pop the case, upgrade the harddrive or ram, it'd be a pain in the ass. You're always fighting a trade off. Ease/ability to upgrade vs. size. I don't care about size. I like being able to tweak things.
What's right for you? Whichever one you're happiest with. Platform wars are just a waste of time, regardless of public opinion, market share, or anything else under the sun.
Gawyn
Re:What turned me from Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Success vs Integrity. (Score:3, Insightful)
The flaw in the argument is the unspoken idea that you can have success or you can have integrity
But by the same token, your definition of success is "I made potloads of money." Isn't it perfectly valid to have an alternate definition?
If I define success as being able to support myself and seeing the look people have coming from my restaurant having had a really good meal, then isn't that a valid definition? I may not necessarily have any integrity, i.e., I may cheat the waiters and lie on my income tax forms, but I'm still successful.
Unless you apply the adjective financial, don't equate success and money.
Re:"ONLY 4.5%" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because it's a slightly different situation. A BMW and a Mercedes are driven in (essentially) the same way as any other car. As a general rule, you only have to be able to drive any car and you can drive a Mercedes or BMW pretty competently.
Try giving a Word Bird (who has only ever started up windows and double clicked on 'Microsoft Word 97') MacOS X. To her at least, the experience is completely bewildering.
Also, on a slightly lesser note, cars can all drive on the same roads. I know it is less of an issue nowadays, but incompatibilities are (at least percieved by most people to be) quite a problem when working in business environments (I'm thinking of .doc format here for instance, but also network protocols/structure etc.)
Form AND Function (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple understands that form and function are not independent variables. For Apple form is a basis for function.
Consider the new iMac. Here is a quote from yesterday's Ive interview reported on /.,
"The new shape emerged shortly afterwards: a dome is the only shape that lets the screen swivel without having "preferred" positions, maximises stability and offers lots of horizontal space. After that, it was the fine detail - of which there is a huge amount.
"
Thus we learn that the dome isn't there simply for asthetics, it is there for functional reasons.
And that is how Apple views design. Not as a veneer to be layered on a finished device but as an integral part of said device.
Steve M
Katz (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no Apple fanatic, if I had the moolah, I would buy one. But I don't so I can't. However, Mac users are on average, some of the most non-tech clued users out there. That's not a slap, just an observation. I'm no graphic designer, or DV editor, so in that respect, I'm the clueless one.
I believe PC's are for the office workers. PC's are also great for hot-rodding, gaming and buildiing the Ultimate Box. PC's are like sedans, minivans, sportscars and dragsters. It all depends on how you build it. Just like a car. Most cars are for The Rest Of Us.
Now, OTOH, we have the Mac. It's a Jaguar. It has sleek, sexy styling, the newest technology and gimmicks, and is engineered to last. The luxury auto of home computing. And a price tag to match. But nothing beats driving a nice well-made car no?
Apple can and does market to the Dubuques, but the Dubuques don't know shit, so they buy a Gateway Cow and get on AOL. And Bill Gates just got another dollar (or more). But a Mac is just what the Dubuques needed. See, Apple markets to the elite, when they're product is more than suitable for The Masses. Any newbie would be better off with a Mac than a PC any day. But the pricetag scares them off, because this is their first fray into computing, or their second and they think PC=computers. Another dollar to Bill.
I don't think Steve Jobs minds. He has a vision of the Mac as an expression of oneself. Image, style, and function. The Select. Macs are suitable for the die-hard artist, and for Grandma. But Mac users like to think of themselves as a cut above. Ok. That's cool, they make great machines.
But Katz is DEAD WRONG about them being troublesome or flaky. That award goes to PC's. PC's are like Frankenstein boxes, you never know what the hell is going on in there. If Apple wants to gain more market share, then just start slipping in the ads some stuff about reliability and long term value. That'll prick up ears, especially in this economic climate.
Re:"ONLY 4.5%" (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been pointed out before, there is market share and there is profit. And in the software and online biz, the mantra of "Market share is king" has been repeated so often that many in the biz (including myself) were believing it.
Of course, in the world of business, "Profit is king". Some companies thought that they had escaped the laws of business. They were wrong.
E-commerce went bust because everybody was scrambling after market share, trying to monopolize their own small market. Amazon showed us this strategy, and everybody follows it. The problem is that there can only be one market share winner, and that winner has no guarantee of making a profit (does Amazon show profits yet?
Apple reminds us that one can survive, and thrive, in a niche market so long as one makes sure to see profits. Most markets have a combination of big "whale" companies (McDonald's, Honda, Daimler-Chrysler, Boeing) and little niche companies (many local one-off restaurants, Rolls-Royce, Cessna). And in a big enough market, both big and little companies can turn profits.
nd what do we have?
Re:"Elegant, floppy-free, and doomed" ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saved Apple from what? I'm tired of revisionist computer historians telling me that Apple was all but doomed at some point or another in recent history, when it simply isn't true.
Sure, at the end of Amelio's reign, Apple had problems. Severe quality assurance problems... for Apple, but still no worse than your average wintel boxmaker. (At the time, our IT dept. was returning more than 15% of new IBM workstations for warranty service, and so decided to switch us all to Gateway.)
Apple had glut of models, yes, probably compounding QA difficulties and eroding profit margins. But so do modern US automakers. Are they doomed?
Apple had a marginal market share, yes. But what's new? Gee, you have 3% of domestic sales instead of 5%. You're doomed!
Clonemakers were taking the most profitable part of Apple's market, yes. (Hell, I bought a high-end clone, too... best Mac price/performace ratio in history. Well, until iMac maybe.) This was perhaps the most threatening problem. But it was because the clonemakers got greedy and didn't honor their licensing agreement. So Apple just didn't renew it. Problem solved.
They had many serious issues to face, and they knew it. Hell, that's why they brought back Jobs. But if he had refused, who knows what would have happened. They had a lot going for them, though: Lots and lots of cash in the bank, enough to fend off any sort of hostile takover attempt. A huge installed base supporting a horde of loyal, even fanatic, users. Mac zealotry was even more intense back then than it is today. They weren't automatically doomed.
Unless you count living in the margins ekeing out a profit on a couple percent share of the market as doomed.
What Jobs did was bring Apple back to the vanguard of personal technology, revitalized their marketing and R&D, gave them a leader to stand behind, and a caricature to present to the public and press. But he didn't "save them from the brink" of anything but mediocrity.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife is stopping people from buying Apple computers?!?
Seriously, that's all that's stopping me from buying one of these things right now (I'm looking to get an iBook at the moment...) It runs the apps I tend to run (SSH, Quicken, Turbotax, Diablo 2, Age of Empires 2), is a nice notebook, gets me away from the hated Windows, and with OSX I can feel at home in a UNIX-y environment. The pretty hip look/feel of the box and OS are a plus too.
It's semi-related to price, but more of a question of "Will it really be useful to get one?" As computers go these days, the price is fairly competitive.
Part of the reason more people don't buy Apple right now is that, unfortunately, it's a Windows-domainated world. They're used to Windows, they know Windows will do what they want (even though pretty much *everyone* I know who uses it complains about how the OS isn't stable, they have various problems, etc,) and non-Windows may not be an option. For instance, at a company I once was at (I'm an IT monkey BTW,) we supported all the UNIX boxes and the Windows desktops, but the Macs were left up to the people who wanted to use them. The majority of people didn't want to deal with the hassle of self-support and went with Windows. Others formed their own psuedo-IT group for just the Mac folks.
Re:Profitability (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple posted a loss for the last fiscal year, not a profit - though it was a very small loss, especially given their huge operating capital.
All the focus on the industrial design of the iMacs is from people who haven't used Macintosh operating systems. The industrial design is to draw the eye to the screen; the Mac's real selling point is there, not in the white curves.
The success of Microsoft has NOTHING to do with the home consumer and everything to do with the business sector. Businesses wouldn't buy Apples, but they would buy machines from IBM (the typewriter company, rather than the long-haired upstarts). So one saw all the business software coming out for the IBM/MSDOS systems (especially Lotus 1,2,3, which was the first "killer app"). Gates rode IBM's coattails at first, until Compaq came up with a clone that had a design (the "portable" computer - remember those first Compaqs?) that offered something IBM didn't and offered full hardware compatability with IBM (and of course Gates &co had brightly given IBM a non-exclusive license).
The marketing folks at MS (maybe including Gates himself) recognized that business customers like packaged solutions, so they came up with the MS Office idea: come up with the second best word processor (Word, versus WordPerfect, which until 9.0 was the best), the second best spreadsheet (Excel, versus Lotus), the second best DB (Access, versus dBase), and sell companies on the idea that they can find all their software solutions in the same package! (and on the compatibility idea - that software from the company that makes the OS will work better with the OS than software from other companies)
Schools bought Apples. The big question was: when the home PC caught on, would home users go with the computers they used at work, or the computers their kids used at home? In the end, I suspect that it was the availability of pirated Microsoft software from the office that was the real key to the success of the IBM/Wintel computer over the Apple. People bought what they were familiar with from work, and what they could rip off software for. Windows was always just a way to make an IBM-paradigm computer more like a Mac.
But the Apple has always been the better home computer. For running general user software in a normal single-tasking home environment, the pre-X Mac OS was perfect. (OS X is a better OS, but the usability isn't quite up to the older Mac OSes yet.)
Now the generation of kids who worked with Apples in school are getting into their 30s. Software piracy is being stamped out by better copy protection. Thanks to the Internet (and in particular the WWW), the compatibility issues for data and documents between the Mac and the Wintel are fading away. The Apple kids are buying Macs for *their* kids. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the Mac double its market share in the next 3 years.
In the end, the Mac is starting to succeed because they're reminding folks who grew up with Macs why they first liked computers.
History of the Automobile Model Year (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a very similar situation to that faced by the computer industry today. Much of the pent-up demand for computers has been exhausted and second- and third-time computer buyers are looking for something new and captivating. In a marketplace where most computers are sufficient for the needs for most users, the only distinguishing features are ease-of-use/consistency/dependability and, gasp, style. Some may argue, but it has been widely noted that Apple provides superior ease-of-use and consistency, if not dependability, by controlling the whole widget. And few would argue that Apple is the company most aggressively testing the style envelope in the PC industry.
The marketplace for the utilitarian PCs may be drawing to a close. Although I am sure users yearn for the greater reliability JonKatz describes, I doubt they will find it from the "truly successful" companies he describes. And in an age where many new computer buyers think in terms of "hot rods" rather than "toasters", style may indeed be king. Hold onto your hats, the age of the computer "model years" may be just around the corner - and Apple may well be leading the pack.
(for more automobile history, see http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/industry.orig
Re:Total gibberish (Score:3, Insightful)
Macs appeal to certain people. A lot of creative professionals use them (I do a lot of design work, I hate 'em.. go figure - although I will say this: damn you Mac users and your Monaco!), although I wouldn't say that Macs are really superior to PCs in this respect (Photoshop is a Mac and PC program, as are most other graphical design suites... and don't forget about the gimp!). Macs are superior in terms of interface, and that appeals to some people and alone makes a Mac a worthwhile purchase.
It really just comes down to different tastes. I don't agree with Katz completely, though. Apple is a financially viable company. They're not as successful in terms of profits as most major PC makers, I'd imagine, but that doesn't really mean much. Very few companies achieve those levels of success. And, of course, Microsoft has them beat - but Microsoft doesn't sell computers.
As for the "kewlness" (seems more appropriate when talking about Mac..) factor. Eh.. I guess it's there. I've always found iMacs to be on the overdone, loud, and gaudy side, though - the new one being no different. But that's beside the point: there is a market for these things, so Jobs is being an intelligent business man by selling them. He's filling a niche. Apple will never be as successful as Microsoft, Macs will never be as prominent as PCs, but who cares? It's about time that people realize that comparing Macs to PCs is like comparing apples to oranges and will be until I can install Linux and WinXP on my iMac and OS X on my new Athlon 1800.
Katz, you're an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip. You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
"You will never seen?" - what the hell are you talking about? That's bad grammar, not to mention the rest of the sentence is false. You're saying MS products are easy to use? Well, I admit, they've gotten better, but they're still playing catch up in that department.
The following is just complete nonsense, and if I can organize all of the rants floating in my head I'll show you why:
Gates understands something Jobs and media don't. When it comes to technology, it's middle-class consumers and their tastes, needs and expectations that determine success or failure.
First and foremost, Apple and Microsoft are two completely different companies. Apple sells computers, Microsoft doesn't. Microsoft sells services, for the most part Apple doesn't. Comparing these two companies is really absurd. In the same way, it's not fair to compare Apple to a company like Gateway, as Apple makes an OS, MP3 player, etc. The point is: MacOS is dominated by Windows, but no Mac users give a rat's ass.
Next, you show your true ignorance with your statement that "middle class consumers" drive the market. Are you really that stupid? Everyone knows that it's businesses that drive the PC world for a myriad of reasons. Yes, every day there are more and more personal goodies for computers, and individuals are buying more of them, but that still does not compare to the amount of money generated by businesses. Every company that uses microsoft software is forced to have a license for every single workstation, unlike the home user who just borrows a friend's. When these businesses upgrade to XP, Microsoft is going to rake in a huge amount of profit. That is what drives their "innovation," not the whims of individual PC users. This is one major reason Mac users are so loyal. Macs give you the feeling that every single part of the computer was designed so that it would be extremely convenient for you to use, that's something that customers really appreciate. Sure, maybe everyone uses Windows, but there's still about 5% of people who use Macintosh, and that's a very happy and pleased 5%.
Re:money, money, money (Score:1, Insightful)
I certainly paid a premium for this computer when I bought it. But, had I saved $800 up front and bought a PC notebook, I would be stuck with something that is slow and most likely unsupported by the manufacturer by now.
I am talking about people who use computers on a daily basis and need something that is speedy and current (me - a techie guy). A two year old PC notebook will surely surf the web and compose a letter (fine for grandma). But, that is not even acceptable for my parents who take digital photos and have a need for something that is current and speedy.
If I were to stick to the PC world, I would have spent more money by now than I did up front with an Apple. I say this because I would have purchased two one year old PC notebooks just to keep current. This computer has been a great value. If I were to sell it today I would get 1/3 to 1/2 my original investment back (to be used to purchase a PowerBook G4 of course!). Say that about any PC notebook.
Notebooks (Mac and PC) are becoming more popular than desktops. They are more costly and less upgradable than desktops. People should look at how long their invesment will last rather than just the selling price.
Re:"ONLY 4.5%" (Score:5, Insightful)
Try giving a Word Bird (who has only ever started up windows and double clicked on 'Microsoft Word 97') MacOS X. To her at least, the experience is completely bewildering.
I'm a little lost.. To install Office I grab the folder off the CD and drag it to the Applications folder.. I know where I just dragged the folder, so I can find it when I need the app. It's not a mysterious thing to most people.. If I want a shortcut, I drag the app to the to dock and a shortcut is created.. I click the Word icon on the dock, or in the Applications folder and Word launches. It looks nicer similar to and contains most of the Windows version of Word..
I know of 6 people who sat down in front of OS X for 5 minutes at the Apple Store or at a friends place and have decided to sell their Windows machines (many of which are under a year old) for new Macs and OS X. These are geeks and teachers mostly who have never used anything but Windows or Unix and immediately recognized how much friendlier OS X felt.. A number of the researchers here have purchased Macs for their desks. They code in project builder (which are generally run on Athalon boxes running Linux), write papers using TexShop (PDFLaTeX), touch up figures using Adobe Illustrator for OS X, read the interdepartmental memos using Word v.X, and maintain their grades in an Excel v.X spreadsheet... The point is that a lot of people are seeing Macs and saying "Wow! You mean I just drag and drop things where I want them and it works? Damn!! That's cool!" and that's what Apple is selling...
Re:PC market is not an election (Score:3, Insightful)
The PC architecture was originally made from a calculator CPU and a chipset that was copied from IBM, by the grace of God winning its day in court, or the IBM/PC architecture would also be prorietary--licensed from IBM.
Instead, we have a plethora of manufacturers who can make $499 pentium IV-class machines because of plentiful, off-the-shelf parts. I'm aware that some of the Mac architecture (bus is all I can name off hand) has opened up, but that all important system architecture is, AFAIK, all theirs.
I guess I could throw this one back at you, you're saying they are in no meaningful way proprietary, so please illustrate your point; I could certainly have part/all of this wrong.
Re:Hardware Quality (Score:2, Insightful)
Both are currently fairly decent.
MacOS v. Windows reliability is one of difficult to quantify issues.
In terms of the single user operating systems, with the Classic MacOS, you generally had higher long term reliability with more frequent re-boots than Windows9x (depending on the hardware issues of either system).
On the other hand you'll end up re-installing or replacing Win9x far more freqently and with much more difficulty. The ease of doing a clean re-install of the classic MacOS and the ability to migrate programs, preferences and extensions is one of the wonders of the IT world.
Worrying about he registry, having to re-install almost all your user installed programs, and the way Internet Explorer is intertwined with Windows, make a "clean" re-intall of Win9x a nightmare.
My experience with Windows multi-user operating systems, like WinNT/2K, indicate reliability tends to be more dependent on quality of administration and purchasing.
If you're administering a lab of student Win2K machines, and the users all have "administrator" rights...
Well, you get what you deserve.
I suspect the same will be true of MacOS X.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:4, Insightful)
That always seems to be left out.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:1, Insightful)
I think Apple does, and that's what drives Katz mad. As I understand the "editorial", Katz is criticizing Apple for not bowing (and appealing) to the bourgeois sensibility.
It might be true that "be bland, not bold" may help you sell more, but it's a moral stance that nobody is forced to take.
Re:Ease of Use (Score:3, Insightful)
OS 8 sucked, which is why Apple updated to 8.1 as quickly as possible. They did the same thing with System 7/7.1, 7.5/7.5.3, 8.5/8.6, and most recently, 9.0/9.0.4. Apple has a history of putting out buggy system software with new technology in it, and then quickly replacing it with a much more stable version of that same technology. And BTW, every recent Mac could be hard shutdown by holding the power button in for 5-10 seconds.
I'll admit that ease and power were once the domain of Apple, but they lost the usability crown years ago to an OS that could display multiple toolbars at the same time (Windows), and they gave up their last hold on the power crown when they switched from SCSI to IDE (sorry, but the G4 just doesn't keep up for anything other than Photoshop).
Show me an ATX case that can be opened in 2 secs with full access to all swapable components like my G4 can, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the hardware front. Show me that you can install and uninstall the majority of Windows programs by draging them to the hard drive or trash, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the OS front.
And BTW, the placement of the menu bar at the top of a window instead of the top of the screen is one of the worst UI flaws in Windows. You can't use both of the at the same time, so why do you need to display them both? And putting a menu bar at the top of the window like that requires more time and precision to use it than when it is against the side of the screen. Its the difference between a height of 40 pixels and an (effective) infinite height.
You have this exactly backwards. One has to have a monopoly before one can abuse it, and Microsoft didn't spring forth whole from the computer industry like Athena from Zeus' head.
You must not know your computer history very well. Microsoft effectively did start off with a monopoly. Or rather they inherited one from IBM through an incredibly stupid business decision on their part. They then used this monopoly they got to jack around companies like Stac Electronics (which made Stacker) and DRI (which made DR-DOS), and to promote their new graphical shell Windows, which they later combined with MS-DOS to make it a true OS in a final effort to prevent DR-DOS from gaining market share.
Computers are a commodity (Score:3, Insightful)
I heartily agree with all the highly-moderated posts that take Katz to task for being an idiot. Those are VERY good points. But people are perhaps missing the boat a little about market share with computers versus automobiles. ALL CARS ARE COMPATIBLE. They can all use basically the same gas, drive on the same roads, obey the same traffic signals. If you know how to drive one of them, you can pretty much drive them all. The switch between Windows and Macintosh is much more wrenching than between a manual and automatic transmission.
My point is that market share does mean a lot more in the computer world, when it comes to operating systems, than BMW's market share does in the car world. Apple vs Dell is irrelevant, but Apple vs Windows is a meaningful statistic. This certainly doesn't mean Apple can't survive, or even thrive, as a "niche player" (I hate that term, since Apple's influence is huge). But don't just blow off such comparisons, because they do say something about the near future of the computing world.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:2, Insightful)
The only problem with the "Windows Way" is that it's applied inconsistently. On the Mac, you close EVERY program by choosing "File: Quit". On Windows, clicking the "X" in the upper-right corner of a window sometimes quits the program, sometimes not.
For example, Yahoo Messenger - if you click the "X" the window closes but the program continues to run in the system tray. (Even worse, it didn't used to be like this, then they changed it.) Windows is full of this kind of nagging inconsistencies.
I still think the Mac has problems which make it NOT the ideal choice for everyone but the extreme computer neophyte, but this is one area where the Mac way is superior.
Re:Ease of use (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, why must we only be talking about Windows up to Windows 98? Everybody thinks that's a piece of crap. If you want to exclude Windows 2000 (in fear), then you say "We are only considering the home computer, because surely those are the only idiots who would use Winbloze!" Well, if you want home systems, what about XP Home? That's a home OS that is at least as stable as Win2k (and anything else on the market), and as easy to use as OS X (maybe).
If you want to complain about marketing departments, bear in mind that Apple also has an excellent marketing department that, despite lacking the vast piles of sheer cash that Microsoft has, instead uses shiny things to attract the attention of the consumer.
Open Source will not be successful among the average user until the coders behind it realize that the average user is incredibly stupid, and that they don't want to spend a lot of time learning your "superior" system, and they are willing to pay an extra few hundred bucks for a system that comes to them easy (they don't have to build it and they don't have to install an OS), and most of all, they hate to be called stupid!! Microsoft and Apple never call their customers lame or dumb or incompetent, and they seem not to care how much better at using their own system than the person to whom they are trying to sell it. Linux has this problem. Suck it up, or go buy an iMac.
Re:Total gibberish (Score:3, Insightful)
Responsible coders keep the continuity, but on a Mac, File : Quit is more difficult to abuse because of it's lingual nature. On GetRight [getright.com], a download manager, they decided to draw a button of their own, rather than break continuity, [. ], it causes the download dialog to be displayed as a system tray icon. Again, responsible coders know what users expect.
In most instant messengers I've tried, however, the minimize button causes the program to be sent to the system tray. It's not an official part of the Windows standard, but it's used a lot, and although I would rather more programs behave like GetRight, I have come to expect this from messaging apps.
Re:Steve Jobs Doesn't Get It? No, You Don't (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what has really interested me about /. of late - the way the majority of comments has changed from being anti-mac to the majority of comments being pro-mac. How many times have you read comments like "try and Mac and you'll understand" in the past few months? Either /. is being infested by large numbers of Mac-heads (who seem to have a lot of moderator points) or Apple is making big inroads into the Linux/BSD/Geek market.
The fact is, most people who dislike Macs are remembering them from years back (look at the guy who based his argument on OS 8 and a Beige G3 in an earlier comment). If you really want to get an idea of what Macs are like *now* you have to go use one. That's where the stunning designs and the new Apple Stores come in. The new iMac is something that you feel you just have to play with (even if you would never buy one) and the Apple Store puts it right there in your face and gives you the opportunity to play with it and if comments on /. are anything to go buy (God help us all), it's working.
Apple and Digital Video (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple will never be huge like Microsoft, or Dell, but Apple is poised to become a dominant player in making all aspects of video - creating, managing, and viewing - accessible to everyone.
People have such a narrow focus on what computers are; they are bland commodities. Digital video is becoming a commodity too, and Apple is right there. Apple is trying to be part and parcel of the entertainment industry, not the computer industry. The entertainment industry is gargantuan compared to the computer industry.
Yes, the iMac as a computer industry commodity is a failure. But it may succeed as an entertainment industry commodity. That's Job's Big Picture [apple.com].
You can't see the forest for the trees... (Score:3, Insightful)
> do unless it wants to start making boxes.
This is the problem for Apple--once MS starts making "the whole widget" and doing it right, there's no longer any reason to buy an Apple unless you're a crusty graphics designer who uses one out of loyalty to his experiences with Apple. Everyone else, including computer-stupid Grandma, will just buy the MS widget. After all, it'll be just as easy and integrated as an iMac, have guaranteed interoperability, and come with a seemingly great deal on integrated MSN internet access and network support. The iMac will only win, on paper, in the looks department, and only narrowly.
See, Microsoft has been planning this for years, albeit with some retarded stops and starts. Why else would they buy WebTV? They thought they could turn it into the Digital Hub which Apple is just recently beginning to talk about. Gates may not be a nice guy, but he's a brilliant businessman. He was hip to this digital hb business when he bought WebTV, it's just that he soon realized that was entirely the wrong platform. This is pretty obvious from the fact that WebTV support was coded into Windows 98, but nothing was ever rally done with it.
So, instead of building up WebTV into a PC, Gates has started with the PC and is stripping it down to its essentials. Xbox is a trial run for this. Microsoft has essentially just mass-produced its own PC, only the software is stripped down to just play games. Yet it's clear from
Xbox is a trial run and proof of concept that MS can be a hardware company. Their next hardware release will be a beefed-up Xbox with a keyboard and mouse and an optional LCD, unless they get inspired by the new iMac and integrate the LCD into the package. It'll play Xbox games on insertion, but the default desktop will have pretty and simple with an MSN Internet icon, a My Documents folder, and icons for word processing and whatever functions neatly provided by the MSN/.Net subscription. All popular Windows-compatible pieces of hardware, like MP3 players and camcorders and such, will have integrated support through simplified software inspired by Apple's designs.
This is clearly the next step for Microsoft, which has been afraid of its software losing marketshare and has wanted to enter the real hardware business for years, at least ever since the abortive WebTV purchase. Microsoft is in a unique position to integrate its software and its
The hints have been there for a long time. Xbox is a trial run. The real hardware, Microsoft's x86 PC with proprietary bits, will be here as soon as Microsoft is happy with its
My Brainstorm (Score:3, Insightful)
Now years later, Apple has been through 47 million dollar losses and come back to still be a profit turning company. This time though, Apple isn't marketing to the masses. Why? They're dull, boring, orthadox, pattern forming, and conformists. They don't allow for new ideas. As the man said, they don't trust the computer industry (paraphrased).
These are not the people that Apple sells to anymore. Apple sells to photo buffs, movie buffs, music buffs, *NIX geeks, people into style, non tech savy people, people who want to have a part of the future today. While these are all niche markets, they are loyal niche markets.
Photo buffs, movie buffs and music buffs all have a favorite company they use. They like to get as much stuff as they can from that company. Never mind they can get a better price from someone else, or maybe even a step better, the fact of the matter is, they can get what they need for their product reliably from one place. This naturaly lends them to be loyal people and thus ideal customers for Apple.
*NIX geeks love to be different, and love to be creative. They don't like things to be done the orthadox way, it's not interesting. New a different ways of doing things are what makes a *NIX geek tick. They love tweaking the code, and trying a different approach. Again, an ideal mac customer.
Non-tech savy people are looking for something easy, fast (to get going not processor speed) and all in one packaging. And since Apple provides all of this, they look good to new users. Since most new people like to stick with the original company for a while, they are at least temporarily loyal, and once again make an idea Apple customer.
Finaly the people who want a bit of the future today. Almost every product Apple has designed has been ahead of its time. Maybe not in sheer power, but in design and style, which has later been copied or imitated in the mass computers. Yes, no matter how you look at it, colorful PCs are the result of the iMac. And these people are also very willing to try something new. SCSI, USB, Firewire, PDAs, GUIs, OS X, all of these ideas and concepts, while they may have been developed elsewhere, where succesfuly pushed and marketed by Apple. They would not be where they are today without that push. And to try to market those ideas to the masses would result in failure. For example, USB, developed by intel, and used occasionaly, but not accepted because no one wanted to change. Along comes the iMac, a USB only machine, and suddenly USB springs up like wild fire.
Apple is succesful, not because they turn the best profit, but because they have loyal cutomers. They have lived through debt and profit, minimal sales and best sales, each time, comming out sucessful in their endevor. That isn't to say they haven't made mistakes, the 20th aniversary mac and the Cube didn't do good at all. But Apple can afford to make mistakes because they have customers willing to wait it out. Their success may not be based on profits, but then again, niether is the Chevy corvette's.