 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Apple Zealots Hurt Apple
Let me start this off by stating for the record that I love Apple machines, I love OS X (I also used to really like OS 7.5 through OS 9), and I love my iPod. Also, for the record, I do not like Microsoft as an operating system, any box running Microsoft that isn't built by the end user him- / herself is usually too flaky for my tastes, I abhor a great deal of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices, and I think each iteration of Windows is a buggier piece of ugly, hacked-together, security-hole-ridden bloat-ware than the last (with the exception of Windows ME, which currently holds the title for buggiest Windows rendition in my book).
Now, after saying all that, I would like to say that I hate Mac zealots. In fact, I believe that rather than being the anchor that keeps Apple grounded, as some may argue, Mac zealots are the number one reason why Apple holds the small market-share that they currently do. The number two reason is simply because of numerous bad business decisions in the past (most of which were probably made in light of the horrible responses received from the Mac Zealots).
Whenever I talk to regular computer users about why I use Apple machines and prefer the Mac OS, they usually throw up the regular arguments: "Macs are too expensive", "I hear you can't find software for Macs", or "I'm too used to Windows and would be lost on a Mac." I then counter with the regular rebuttals: "You get what you pay for / they tend to last longer", "Most of the popular software available for PC is also available for Mac, there's lots of OpenSource and free software available for the Mac, and, with the exception of games, you can always run Virtual PC", and "It takes an initial bit to learn the basic differences, but I think you'd find for the most part that it is much simpler and a more natural interface."
However, one out of every 5 of the regular users, and nearly every non-Mac IT person that I speak with will say something like, "You're not one of those mac freaks are you?" There is a concern among non-Mac users that there is a sort of cult phenomenon surrounding the Mac world (and this stigma is played upon by such recent popular blogs as Wired's Cult of Mac). This concern is born from the Mac zealots. These are the people that will not tolerate any criticism of Apple. They are the people who will most likely not only flame the comments of this article should they read it, but post about this article on numerous discussion boards, asking for other Mac-faithful to come to the defense of Apple, the Apple-faithful, and to silence this Mac-hater-C.K.-guy.
But that's the problem. I'm not a Mac-hater. I am a Mac lover. Also, most PC users aren't Mac-haters. They're just unfamiliar with Macs and ambivalent toward Apple. These could-be switchers see the blind devotion of the Mac zealot and react normally to that devotion: they shun it and anything associated with it. I honestly believe that a lot more people would be switchers if they had not noticed the cult-like following of the Mac. Fortunately, there is a positive cult of the iPod that is countermanding much of this negative spin for Apple and making more people switchers than would have been in the past.
However, there's another problem with the Mac zealots, and maybe this one isn't even exclusively with the Mac zealots. I think this problem may extend into some of the regular non-zealots, who have left their grey-boxed PC behind and now love their Macs. I'd say many people have a sort of fear that if they criticize Apple or complain about their Macs, then Apple will crumble, they will lose their Apple, and be exiled to a grey-boxed, Windows-only world. There's not anything wrong with loving your Mac and what all it does for you. However, I think that we all have a responsibility as consumers to hold Apple responsible for their mistakes so that they are forced to not let those mistakes continue, and this is where many Mac users fail Apple.
For example, I'd say at least three out of the last 5 Apple computers I have owned or worked with have had a serious problem and have needed to be replaced. That's not good numbers and it points to production flaws in the Apple machine, as well as contradicting my earlier assertion that "you get what you pay for" with Macs.
Here's a slightly more detailed example: Go to the 12inchPowerbooks Yahoo!Group and take a look over the archives. You will find an inordinate number of posts discussing the major production flaw of the 12-inch Powerbooks: they warp / come pre-warped. When you place them on a flat surface a large percentage of every iteration of the 12-inch Powerbooks wobble. Why didn't Apple fix this after the first round of them came hot off the press? Read some of those posts more closely and you will discover why: because not enough people bother to complain about it. Many of them say that it is not that big of a problem and that they love their little Powerbook anyway. There are several threads discussing exactly what type of rubber feet to buy from where to affix to the bottom of the Powerbook to "fix" the problem, rather than having to go to the bother of sending it back to Apple. There are even discussions about how to best bend the Powerbook to get it back to a non-wobbling state. That is ludicrous and probably not too good for the Powerbook's innards. But these otherwise intelligent and logical people are overlooking this problem, because it is a Mac.
This behavior isn't protecting and helping Apple. It is hurting Apple. Apple needs to address these flaws, but it's not cost-effective if not enough people report it. I returned my first Powerbook because it wobbled. I walked into the Apple Store, I argued calmly but forcibly with the manager of the store, and I was given a brand new non-wobbling 12-inch to replace my 4-day-old wobbling one. Did I love that first wobbling one? Yes. But I loved the second one a lot more and I felt a lot better about having spent $1700 on a laptop that didn't wobble than I did on the one that did. (If interested, you can search my site for posts entitled "This warping thing" for more of my ranting about this issue).
So what's the point? Complain. Return defective products. Put yourself through the hassle. Don't be an Apple zealot who berates people who criticize Apple. Be an Apple enthusiast who loves Apple but actively holds Apple accountable for their products (if anyone at Apple is reading this, please make .mac less buggy). This will both help improve Apple products and it will be better PR for Apple than the current search and destroy methods of the Apple zealots and the happy embrace of Apple products, flaws and all, by the Mac faithful.
Microsoft and Apple: Competing Again
According to the San Jose Mercury News everyone's favorite monopolistic software vendor is preparing to unveil an online music store. Early reports indicate it bears more than a passing resemblance to the iTunes store, which is unsurprising when you consider that Microsoft is not known for wildly successful visual/user interface/ease of use innovationÉ or actual innovation in any sense. That's not a criticism. Microsoft, as evidenced by the gluttonous piles of cash filling their coffers, has been very, very successful. The question now becomes will Microsoft's foray into the world of online music downloads relegate the market leading iTunes to marginal status.
One is tempted, perhaps motivated by the hubris associated with the success of iTunes, to chalk up Microsoft venture into the realm of digitally downloaded Beyonce as just another failure waiting to happen. The track record for iTunes competitors is very poor, sure everyone remembers all the failed iPod killers (Hi Sony) but it's easy to forget all the failed iTunes replacements. While the past results do not guarantee future performance (as any investment advertisement is legally bound to say) it can be useful tool for examining the probable outcomes.
Let us examine the history of iTunes competitors. Remember Buymusic.com? It is perhaps a reflection of its utter failure that so few people actually remember the first iTunes replacement. People have forgotten the Tommy Lee ads and the bold predictions of market dominance. Not since Nikita Khrushchev shouted "We will bury you" has a prediction been so utterly unfulfilled (final tally of songs sold by buymusic.com? three or some number thereabouts). The complete catastrophe that was buymusic did not inhibit others from entering the market. On the contrary once buymusic went the way of the Ford Pinto other companies were actually encouraged, like moths drawn to a cash burning flame, to jump into the digital download market. Wal-Mart jumped in, got out and jumped back in. They're still selling songs at .88 cents a pop but they're doing it at a pace where a lone Wal-Mart employee in Sheboygan Wisconsin could personally rip and encode every order. Real's efforts are still underway, the plaintive pleading to Steve Jobs to open up the iPod and bogus consumer friendliness notwithstanding. Of course there are plenty of other failures along the way: Napster 2.0, Musicmatch et al. Sony's music store, the most recent entry into the market, has been about as well received as a Yankees hat in Fenway Park.
Of course Microsoft has an advantage that all the other iTunes competitors lacked: they make the operating system. This gives Microsoft the ability to bundle the music store with the every license of Windows that flies out of the door. That's over ninety percent market saturation of all new installs, spiffy if you're Microsoft. Fortunately not every person buying a new Widows PC will naturally gravitate towards the Microsoft music store, some computer manufacturers will bundle iTunes with their offerings, HP is supposedly on track to do just that. Even with at least one computer manufacturer slapping iTunes for windows on the hard drive iTunes will be sharing space with the Microsoft version of pay as you go music. Microsoft has an even more powerful weapon at its disposal: the music store is said to be included with the next edition of Windows Media Player. So when Windows users are prompted to download the latest version of Windows Media Player presumably they'll get a music store at no extra charge. At this point most people will reflect upon Microsoft's market dominance and immediately think "Well so much for iTunes".
It is almost as if the market leader has become the instant underdog, but maybe, even with the incredible market leverage of Microsoft, Apple will win this race. What possible advantage could Apple have against the prompted install that will be the Microsoft Music store? The biggest advantage that Apple has is that all the songs Microsoft sells will feature iPod incompatibility. Microsoft says that iPod incompatibility is no big deal, plenty of people don't even own an iPod (I'm one) and, executives assure us, they've seen the new mp3 players coming that are every bit as great as the iPod. All I can say is "good luck with that," so far it's iPod 1,000 iPod killers 0. Details on pricing and DRM are sketchy or non-existent (though the widely reviled subscription model has been nixed) so it's tough to say just what you'll get for your money besides sixty player compatibility. Again no one outside of Redmond knows how much the tracks will set you back but Microsoft apparently got a very similar deal from the record labels as the Apple has in place. So the cost per song to Microsoft should be similar, which leads people to argue that Microsoft has the funds to undercut the iTunes pricing of $0.99 and thus "buy" market share. Wal-Mart, as noted earlier, already does this and mass migration has not been seen so pricing may not be that big of an issue. Microsoft's other hurdle will be the already wide acceptance of iTunes. The majority of people who want to buy music online already use iTunes and getting them to switch isn't going to be a cakewalk, after all who wants to have yet another file format (and another media player with various songs scattered betwixt the two)? So while Microsoft has all the advantages that come with being Microsoft Apple has all the advantages that come with being innovative. The outcome isnÕt a slam-dunk one way or another but it should prove to be very interesting watching.
Toy Sight
I love my iSight. But unfortunately there just aren't enough of my iChat buddies that have one. So instead of looking at myself all day I thought I would try to use my iSight for a different purpose. No, I'm not talking about a porn webcam. I'm talking about Toy Sight, the suite of iSight games from Strange Flavour and Freeverse Software.
According to the Toy Sight website, "Toysight is set of cool games and toys to play using your iSight™ or similar firewire camera. Using a system of object and motion detection to track your position, Toysight allows you to control buttons, sliders and perform gestures on the screen, putting you right in the action!" This statement is certainly true as Toy Sight delivers a highly challenging and addictive set of games.
INSTALLATION
Toy Sight comes packaged as a CD. The application folder is 153.4MB in size and it is a simple drag into your Apps folder installation. You are not required to restart after installation. Your iSight or compatible camera must be connected for Toy Sight to run. Although primarily marketed as games for your iSight, other firewire cameras can be used. You should consult with the website for compatibility issues.
SETUP
Once launched, a loading screen popped up and lasted for approximately 1 minute. [I tested Toy Sight on a G4 1.25GHz 15" Powerbook with 512MB of RAM] Then the tutorial began. This narrated tutorial is invaluable. I advise you not to skip over it. First the narrator, tells you to move out of the camera's view as it scans the background. This takes about 30 seconds. Then she asks you to step into the camera view and move your hands to access 2 hands on the screen. This is necessary to calibrate your hands with the controls. Incidentally, the hands are white and cartoony like Mickey Mouse's or Hamburger Helper. Finally, you are taught the different types of controls. I realized that, with my computer in the corner of the room, I did not have enough room to appear in the camera and flap my arms. You might want to give yourself plenty of room.
INTERFACE
You control everything with your hands: selecting games, confirming commands, and playing the games. Although this seems tricky at first, I liken it to the first few days of a new cell phone—every time you play, it feels more and more natural. They have built in however, the use of the space bar which pauses the game and pulls up commands like "Return to Menu" and the all-important "Quit".
GAMES
With 12 games and toys included in this product, you are sure to find one or two that strike your fancy. These games vary in difficulty and learning curve and although I find some more successful than others, they are all elegantly simple and beautifully rendered. The developers have really used the unique controls to make games that are fun to play over and over.
My two favorite games in Toy Sight are Plank and Freefall.
In Plank you control a seesawing plank by lifting both of your hands on either side of you up and down. As colored balls come down, you tilt the plank so that the existing balls roll from one side to another. Once you have 3 balls of the same color next to each other, they disappear and you rack up the points. The controls were very responsive and the gameplay challenging.
In Freefall, you are a skydiver who is trying to land as close to your target landing spot as possible. Again, by waving your hands up and down, you can control the rotation of your freefall. By raising both hands, you slow down your speed and by lowering both hands you accelerate your speed. As an added bonus challenge, a ring of skydivers have formed beneath you with one missing link to the circle: you. If you can time it so your rotation lines up, you form the circle link and gain added points.
Here's a quick list of the remaining included games:
Submarine Battle–2 player game where you fire missiles at each other's submarine.
The Owl and the Pussycat–Flap your arms to flap your wings and carry your cat with you on a magical flight.
Marble Factory–Laser blast colored marbles sent down from aliens
Volcano God–Use your godly powers to prevent the evil laborers from stealing your crop collecting villagers. (Not kidding, that's the plot of the game!)
PieSight–Fire custard pies at monkeys who are throwing bananas at you!
Toy War–Take a snapshot of your toy and battle your opponents toy.
Extreme Tennis–Picture Pong with an exploding ball.
IS IT WORTH IT
Absolutely. If you own an iSight, this game is worth every penny. Toy Sight offers a good selection of 1 player and 2 player games. And I have found that every game is great for parties. It beats karaoke any day!
Retail Price: $34.95
Minimum requirements:
OSX 10.1.5
G3 600MHz or G4 400MHz
256 MB RAM
200 MB of free hard disk space
iSight or other compatible firewire video camera
www.toysight.com
The Definitive all iRumor iMac
When there's a Mac soiree coming up the rumors inevitably start swirling like bacteria floating over a poorly cleaned toilet. Usually the big rumors wait for MacWorld San Francisco but this year there was a glitch, the new iMac wasn't ready on time so the gristmill is fed to the point of popping for the Paris Expo. I'll make the admission that I'm a rumor junkie (My name's Chris. Hi Chris) and I love all the pointless speculation. Most people are solidly in the entertainment value only camp when the subject turns to Apple's products of a phantasmagorical nature (thus far) but for some the rumors are more serious. For a few any rumor slowly calcifies in their brains changing from obvious random guessing to indubitable fact. Unfortunately when the new product is revealed these folks suffer from severe disappointment.
Which is a bit of an oddity, you'd think a missed prediction would go hardest on the folks who present the rumors, particularly those who present them as fact. That is, unfortunately, not the case. No, like the seemingly monthly predictions on the cover of the Weekly World News people remember only the "hits" and never the "misses". Thus individuals who got it wrong the first time can guess anew without a credibility penalty for their earlier poor prognostications. Which is a pretty good deal for the diviners of new Macness, it's unlimited "do overs" (unsurprisingly you won't get that chance in Vegas). So we have arrived at the only legitimate use of rumors: entertainment. Think of the rumors as reality television, sure there are compelling moments but in the end it's just a cheap way to get people to watch.
When the new iMac is rolled out you'll hear two things: "It's too expensive" and "It's exactly like I said it would be". Of course someone is going to be arbitrarily close enough to the actual iMac that they will appear to either have super high level inside Apple contacts or some kind of extrasensory perception. It will just be an illusion, with so many people guessing on so little information at least one person is bound to come close if for no other reasons than confirmation bias and random luck. So when the iMac is finally rolled out and looks exactly like some obscure website said it was going to look remember: It wasn't that they knew, they got lucky.
There are a few things that are not desultory speculation:
- Apple has announced that a new iMac will be available in September.
- The new iMac will feature a G5 processor.
- Apple has filed for a patent on a color-changing scheme (twice).
- Apple has filed for a portable handheld computing device patent.
- Toshiba said they have orders from Apple for a 60 GB version of the drive used in the iPod.
And that's all the publicly available info. Only the first two tidbits are surely related to the iMac the rest are ancillary chunks of info that may or may not debut in an iMac. Of course the mongers of all things rumor take the info and utilize it like a chef uses recipe ingredients. They mix them, they match them, go a little heavy on one ingredient a little light on another, mix in a little bit of imagination (imagination is the paprika of the computing world) and come up with a million different ideas. The configurations are rolled out like the most ostentatious presentations of a five star restaurant and offered as a sure fire, stone cold LOCK.
On the other hand rumors are all I have to go with, my sole source of lacking info so to speak. So I've carefully designed, nay, scribbled on paper, what the new iMac must include to make all the rumors true. I present:
The Definitive All iRumor iMac:
Now if Apple produces some monstrosity that that even slightly resembles the above "thing" I suggest, strongly, you run to the nearest store and go fully Wintel. On the other hand surely some specification or design element in the above cartoon will at least bear a quickly passing resemblance the actual iMac. In that event: Remember you saw it here first.
The Problem with the iTMS DRM
I really enjoy the iTunes Music Store, because like so many other great services out there, it makes my life easier. I can, from the privacy of my little 12-inch PowerBook, find Ashlee Simpson's Autobiography, preview the songs, purchase, and download it for my listening pleasure without all the embarrassment of walking into the local CD store and bashfully sliding Ms. Simpson's excellent CD across to the seventeen-year-old punk-rock sales clerk who looks at me as if I am the epitome of all that is currently wrong with the world: a 31-year-old computer geek who likes to listen to Jessica Simpson's little sister crooning "You make me wanna la la!"
Am I over-sharing here? Perhaps...but there's the rub: the sharing. According to the agreement that you or I must click through in order to purchase anything from the iTMS, we are not allowed to share this music. It's not like a CD that you can lend to a friend. In fact, it's not like any other real world product that you can purchase in the U.S. and lend to your friends without breaking any laws. Such lending and sharing has some pretty deep roots in our culture, and is supposedly protected under fair use laws. Unfortunately, the iTMS license agreement spits in the face of any notion of fair use. And just to make sure that you and I, the consumers, understand that we shouldn't be sharing, there is an ugly piece of crippling code in each song purchased from the iTMS, which defines certain guidelines for the use of these tunes. This is Digital Rights Management (DRM). Unfortunately, DRM isn't concerned with your rights and your freedoms. Instead, DRM is concerned with the big monied pockets of the handful of large companies that own the majority of the music which you see on MTV or hear on the radio. Remember when you used to be able to burn the same iTMS-purchased playlist to CD 10 times? Now, remember when those same 99cent songs that you spent your hard earned money on with the understanding that you would be able to burn the same playlist 10 times, suddenly, via a software update to iTunes, lost 3 of those burns? That is the evil of DRM in action.
Let me note here that I don't really blame Apple for the DRM. Apple is stuck in the middle between the consumer and the-guys-who-own-the-rights-to-all-the-songs-in-the-world. These guys aren't concerned with art or producing a good product; they just want to hoard as much money as possible and stick it in their ears. To hear more about why DRM is evil, make sure you read this wonderful piece by Cory Doctorow of the EFF, an organization which is concerned with your rights as a consumer and is fighting for these rights daily.
Here's some nice things to know about how to circumvent your iTMS-purchased music's DRM. Doing so violates the license agreement you agree to when purchasing your music, but, according to pre-existing fair use laws, you should be able to do whatever you want to with items that you purchased so long as you are not making multiple copies and illegally reselling those copies (selling the original, as long as you don't keep a copy, should be legal). As an aside: in nearly every interview Steve Jobs has had about the iTunes Music Store, he's said that the best thing about the iTMS's business model is that you own the songs, not some odd subscription.
- The easiest way to get around the DRM is to burn the music to CD, then rip the music back into iTunes. The burned and re-ripped songs won't have DRM any longer. Make a backup of the original files and keep the DRM-free versions on your computer.
- That's easy, but time consuming and can become expensive over time in all the wasted CDs you have to burn (Who uses CDs anymore anyway? That's so Twentieth-Century!). Another option is hymn:
The purpose of hymn is to allow you to exercise your fair-use rights under copyright law. It allows you to free your iTunes Music Store (protected AAC / m4p) purchases from their DRM restrictions with no sound quality loss. These songs can then be played outside of the iTunes environment, even on operating systems not supported by iTunes.
- Keep your eye on Jon Lech Johansen's blog. Jon is also known as "DVD Jon", the guy who hacked the encryption on DVDs, releasing the DeCSS code freely online to allow DVDs to be played on Linux. Jon recently released a means to stream MPEG4 Apple Lossless files to an Airport Express, something not supported by Apple.
The great thing about hymn and Jon's hacking is that it helps open up the iTMS to MORE customers: those running non-iTMS-supported operating systems, like Linux. This is also the stupid thing about DRM. It's supposedly meant to prevent piracy, but it is so easily circumnavigated (just burn a CD and then rip it) that any would be pirates are already pirating. All DRM does is seriously inconvenience the law-abiding consumers who are supporting the music industry with their dollars. The first record label to wrap their brains around this simple fact, and to stop stuffing money in their ears, ignoring the concerns of law-abiding citizens, is going to make a lot of money.
iPod mini Burnout
I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of hearing about the iPod mini. Mind you, I love the thing and I don't even have one. I think that the mini was the perfect next step in the evolution of the iPod line of products. How brilliant of Jobs and Co to introduce colors! Just like they did for the glorious iMacs of the mid-90's. Now my plain ol' white iPod looks bland in comparison. I guess white was last year's beige. But with all the hooplah, "Hot Gadget of the Year", "Must-Have of the Summer", "Savior of the Earbudless Ears", I am afraid that the mini is getting overexposed.
Don't believe me? Google, "Free iPod Mini" and you will find thousands of listings. Fly 3 Round Trip Flights on Song Airlines and get a Free iPod mini. Sign up on Sonic Youth's website and win a Free iPod mini. Get an oil change at Hank's Automotive and win a Free iPod mini. Really the only worthwhile contest for an iPod mini has been the Triple Crown Giveaway on iPodlounge. But the fine people at iPodlounge, for obvious reasons deserve to give one away. (Kudos BTW to Dennis and the gang for a great, well organized, promotion.)
As a professional in advertising and marketing, I realize the appeal of giving away something like a mini. After all, they are in high demand, they have a perceived value higher than their $249 price tag, they are regarded as the hot thing, and they are appealing to all audiences. I admit, that I have brought up the Mini as a compelling offer option for a promotion in concept presentations.
The beauty of the mini is you don't have to sell the category. People now know what an iPod is. People now know what a digital portable music device is. For god's sake, my father, who is the furthest thing away from cutting-edge, knows about iPods.
I don't think there has ever been a product more marketable for promotions than this. The portable DVD player is coming close but with competition and such a wide marketplace, there is not one single model that differentiates itself from the pack. 10 years ago, the Palm Pilot was a hot item. But PDA's did not appeal to a wide enough audience. They were mostly used for tradeshow giveaways, and business promotions. With a mini, anybody with ears could perceivably use one. So can you blame a company for using it's mass appeal to get customers?
I don't know.
But what troubles me is I've seen this before. When Volkswagen started rolling their new Beetle off the assembly line, it was the hot new thing. It was different. It was colorful. It was hard to get. And it had a brilliant advertising campaign around it. Soon, all over town you saw Beetles zipping through town with company logos plastered all over them. Then you saw promotions where you could win a Beetle. But after a few months the Beetle was overexposed. The PT Cruiser and the Mini Cooper were not far behind in the rise and fall of "Hot" status. Of course for those who got one of those cars don't care about overexposure. They have a car. No matter what people think about them, they can still drive their car around town.
I will not fool myself into thinking the iPod mini is like a car. But the quick overexposure as the "Hot Thing" could burn out the Mini's staying power in the marketplace. Of course if you have one, you still have a great portable music player. So why do you want one? For the music? Or the cache of owning the hot thing of the moment?
Avoiding the iMac
When it comes to talking about unannounced products the denizens of Infinite Loop are famously taciturn. Lately they've been making an exception to this long implemented policy and doling out a tidbit of information here and a soupcon of ship dates there with regard to the unseen iMac. This behavior, while unusual, is not surprising. When a corporation has a three-month gaping hole in their product line a little reassurance that there is, someday, going to be a replacement goes a long way to stifle the fears of devotees.
Predictably not everyone is excited by the prospect of new iMacs, there is a group of individuals who eschew the iMac as unsuitable for their needs. Many people that fall into this category have legitimate reasons for avoiding an iMac, they may be scientists who need massive numbers of rack mounted X-serves or Photoshop pros who absolutely have to have the latest and greatest pro tower. People like this generally have other people paying for their computers so the following arguments will seem meaningless for those individuals. The second collection of people that commonly reject the idea of an iMac are the "prosumers." This group is comprised of people who think, often erroneously, that they need a G5 tower for home use. In the past the argument had merit, but with recent advancements the idea that a tower is required by a techish home user is decidedly unconvincing.
The home using tower clique has a plethora of stated reasons for avoiding an iMac but the foremost is expandibility. This was a particularly compelling argument with the introduction of the first iMac. Merely replacing the hard drive was a quick primer in Mac disassembly. The same process on a tower is remarkably simple, it's as if all the difficulty of replacing a hard drive on a iMac somehow balances out the simplicity of replacing the hard drive in an Apple designed G4 tower. Nonetheless with the advent of Firewire and Firewire extreme this argument is rendered obsolete, one would be hard pressed to find a home user who could not comfortably use a Firewire hard drive as their primary destination for all files Macintosh. (The most recent iMac featured an ATA 66 interface capable of 66 MBps data transfer, Firewire Extreme clocks in at a smooth 100 Mbps. In the real world your mileage may vary).
Another oft cited reason for iMac avoidance concerns the monitor. Again we see sound reasoning if we harken back to the pre flat panel iMacs. The consumer was constrained by a fifteen inch screen. The more recent iMacs offered a variety of screen sizes, from the somewhat limiting 15 inches to the seemingly expansive 20 inches. If the new iMacs retain the multiple screen sizes of their predecessors then the gratingly common complaint of screen size is also rendered nonsensical.
At this point in the discussion we find ourselves unavoidably thrusted into the world of uncertainty: What if the monitor refuses to continue functioning? The entire system will be useless. Actually that is a bit of hyperbole. While only the informed few know what a new iMac will feature, video out will nearly certainly be available. This coupled with the advent of Bluetooth would make an iMac lacking only a working screen still useful as long as the size remains small enough for the computer to be conveniently hidden. An even more unpleasant occurrence might reach fruition should the motherboard become the final a repository of a sugary carbonated beverage. If the current iMacs are any indication then the end user is stuck with a fairly excellent screen and absolutely no way to take make use of said component. Those horrific sequences aside the argument can be reduced to the accurate and simplistic complaint: I don't want to buy two separate system components that have been designed to function only in a mutually dependent manner. To properly address this issue a survey of price is required. Currently the least expensive PowerMac requires a hefty cash outlay of $2,000 (and that's the miserly option, pricing scales up to Apple friendly 3,000 for the apex of the of the PowerMac line). There is no current official word on new iMac pricing so it is necessary to let history guide the conjecture. The most recent iMac featured a twenty-inch screen and Apple was delighted to trade it to consumers for a mere 2,199 non-gold standard US dollars. Not a bad deal considering a stand-alone 20-inch Apple produced monitor commands a respectable 1,299 depletion of Washingtons. If the soon to be unleashed iMac mirrors previous pricing then a twenty inch iMac G5 seems like a positively irresistible value. Of course this is just speculation, it is possible, perhaps likely, that iMac prices will substantially increase in which case the value factor would have to be seriously reconsidered.
Once price is introduced the tête-à-tête inevitably moves to the final objection: performance. The home tower craving types are positively sure they can only be satisfied by the awesome number finagling power residing under the perforated brushed aluminum housing of PowerMac. This feeling is quite understandable but a careful analysis reveals that an iMac with a single G5 processor should more than adequately handle all the tasks an average home user could throw at it. If we take system requirements of processor intensive programs as an indicator of a G5 iMac capability we find no programs requiring a dual G5 (Author's note: I think this is true, but there may be some semi obscure high end app that I overlooked). While system requirements reveal what programs the iMac will run the protocol offers scant insight about what programs the iMac will run comfortably. By way of example, a 400Mhz G4 tower will run iMovie and OS X but it's not an undertaking that most users would willingly endure. Returning to question of iMac usefulness we are left unable to form a convincing answer with the current state of iMac knowledge. Until the specifications reach a more solidified state one might be well advised to examine the performance of the 1.8 GHz single processor G5. The temptation is to present a tedious listing of start up times and Photoshop filters but suffice it to say most owners of said towers are very happy with the performance. The true gauge, naturally, of the amount of power an individual user needs is dependent upon the applications used with regularity. Suffice it to say most users think they need more power than they actually require.
So is the iMac suffering from a legacy left by the original CRT iMacs? In some instances this is clearly the case. Rethinking preconceived notions reveals that since the introduction of the iMac it has evolved from an admittedly limited but certainly adequate computer to a credible alternative to a PowerMac for the vast majority of Macintosh aficionados. The common objections have been overcome: the inclusion of firewire means expandability is no longer an issue, performance for all but the most expensive applications is acceptable and looks to improve with the inclusion of a G5 chip, and monitor sizes can be selected to match personal preference/budgetary concerns. Price is unknown at this juncture but the value when compared to a PowerMac will, if history is an indicator, be outstanding. Keeping all these factors in mind the iMac should no longer be considered as a computer for the under informed or underfunded masses but as a viable alternative for the most discriminating home user.
Chess on a Mac
I love playing chess. They say it is the game of Kings and Queens and guillotinesÑ:No, wait... That's an Aerosmith song. Anyway, my problem: I'm good at chess. "Why's that a problem?" you ask.
Here's the scenario: I'm no Bobby Fisher, mind you. I'm very much in the intermediate range of chess player. However, this puts me leaps and bounds ahead of most of my friends. This in turn means that I often win when I play my friends, and it also means that they don't like to play me as often as I would like to play, because they are tired of being beaten. Solution to this problem? Play chess on my Mac. This article is going to discuss a few options for doing just that.
Panther's Chess
You could always navigate to your Applications folder and launch OS X's default chess program. Besides being pretty (you can have a 3-D board made of grass, marble, metal, or wood, and pieces made of fur, marble, metal, or wood), this chess program is a powerful little chess app complete with spoken moves, optional take backs, and hints. The problem? Like I said, I'm no Bobby Fisher, and winning against OS X's Chess isn't in the cards unless you happen to be on the level of Gary Kasparov, Bobby F., and the Grand Master boys. It's hard. Sometimes, I think I remember beating OS X's chess program once, but I'm not really sure if it really happened, or if it was just a dream...
Big Bang Chess
Big Bang Chess from Freeverse Software is the chess program that you wish came as part of Apple's iLife package. Actually, it is better that it doesn't, because it is free. This chess program is cooler looking than Apple's (Chess becomes the game of the gods in Big Bang Chess, as you play as either the sun or the moon), but the computer chess engine isn't nearly as strong. I can be assured a regular win when I play the computer on Big Bang Chess. Unfortunately, consistently winning can be just as annoying as consistently losing; however, due to its nice integration with OS X, Big Bang Chess is not limited by the computer. You can invite friends to play online via iChat, the program is fully Rendevous aware; you can play Big Bang Chess via email with a long distance friend who is hard to catch online; and as an added bonus you can access your iTunes playlists from within the game, for some easy listening or search-and-destroy type music, depending upon the type of game you're having. The only downside to Big Bang Chess is that it doesn't find an opponent for you, so if you, like me, are better or more enthusiastic about chess than most of your friends, then you will need something more...
Acessing the Internet Chess Club
If you want to find players online for chess, you could surf around Yahoo!Games for free (read ad-based) casual rated play via java in your browser, but if you really want some hardcore rated chess action, you need to go to the spot where the Grand Masters play: the Internet Chess Club. At right around $50 a year for membership, joining the Internet Chess Club is a pretty good deal. You can always find someone willing to play. You can play rated or non-rated games, chat with opponents, and you are ranked according to your skills. There are also numerous online tutorial sessions and tournaments that you can participate in to help improve your chess game. My favorite feature is that you can set the preferences to automatically email yourself a transcript of your game for later examination or future reference. There are two programs I recommend for playing on ICC once you have an account: Chessic and Jin. Chessic runs natively in OS X, and includes automated controls for seeking new games. Jin runs in a window, running on Java, and is a bit prettier than Chessic, although you have to type in all your options via the chat interface to the ICC. These commands are ICC commands and can be used in either program. To access all available commands, simply type "help commands" in the chat window. Neither of these programs are as pretty as those previously discussed, but if you are looking for hardcore online chess action this is definitely the way to go. If you don't feel like investing $50 a year to enjoy the chess-action-goodness, Jin also works with FICS-The Free Internet Chess Server. Unfortunately, there aren't nearly as many players on FICS as on ICC, and FICS isn't .mac email friendly due to some spam problems they've had in the past, so you might have some difficulty signing up. If you go with either ICC or FICS, look for me online and we'll play a game. My handle is cks3 on ICC and cksthree on FICS. Let the games begin!
One final note...
If you are tired of plain old chess, you might want to check out Shogi, Japanese Chess, and MacShogi, the first Mac OS X Shogi Database Program, is the way to go. Have fun!
I Want An Apple Credit Card
Ashlee Simpson song: 99 Cents
Black Eyed Peas song: 99 Cents
Getting free songs from the iTunes Music Store: Priceless.
Ok. So I combined Mastercard's ad campaign with Discover Card's cash back program. These days, it seems everyone has credit cards these days. With the popularity of internet shopping, it's just more convenient to pay with your credit card. And with the addition of debit cards, it's easier to pay with plastic then to withdraw cash from the ATM.
With the popularity of credit cards, it is no surprise that Bank First has come out with a Debit MasterCard featuring the R&B; singer, Usher, on it. Geared for consumers with low credit ratings, owning this card gives you access to exclusive content, merchandise discounts and concert tickets. But make no mistake: this card is a money making venture for Bank First and an exposure vehicle for Usher. Now wouldn't that make sense for Apple?
I would love to have an iPod or iTunes branded Visa or MasterCard. Actually, One look in my wallet and 9 out of 10 people would agree, my wallet needs an Apple credit card. Here's what Apple could add to my wallet and to theirs:
Design
No one designs things consistently clean and elegant like Apple does. There's a great spot between my boring run of the mill Discover Card, my bland Visa Card, and my Regional Bank branded Debit MasterCard. The only card out there that could add some spice to my pocket rawhide is the Amex Blue Card. But as of this article, despite multiple attempts a week to get my business, I have denied that clear card. (I don't want to leave that space open for my Apple Card)
Incentives:
My Discover Card gives me $1 for every $100 I charge with it. Now what am i going to do with $1? A pack of gum? Some dental floss? Maybe I can afford a spool of thread! I know: I can go to the Five and Dime and have a field day. Great plan if only there were still Five and Dimes! With the iTunes Music Store, Apple already has product that are conveniently sized in 99 Cent increments. Wouldn't it be nice to be pissed you had to finally spring for a new refrigerator and at the end of the month you had a 7 song credit to your iTunes Music Store account?
Benefits:
My Visa card gives me magazine subscriptions for my business. The problem is, in an attempt to provide the credit card charging public a wide selection, the choices are not diverse, they are obscure. I had to settle for a 2 year subscription to Archaeology Today magazine. I thought the entire point of archaeology was to find out about yesterday not today. Owning the Apple credit card could get you subscription discounts to MacWorld, Mac Addict, and MacDirectory. It could also get you discounts at the Apple Store. Or MacWorld. Or to concerts. Or to internet services. Apple could get the help of all of their current marketing partners and create a very tempting product.
Promotions:
Every time I go to Fenway Park to watch my beloved Red Sox, I always get suckered into getting a Red Sox credit card. Is it because I love the Red Sox? Not entirely. It's because of the stupid T-Shirt that I couldn't buy anywhere else. And I do say buy because after paying the annual fee, I could have bought 2 shirts at the Souvenir Shop. I'm not saying Apple should hawk T-shirts. But add an exclusive premium into the sales pitch, and people will line out the Apple Store to get it.
Profits and trackability:
The credit card business model is beautiful. It empowers you the consumer to get something now and pay for it later. You can pay it in small increments or pay it all at once. But you get it now. No more putting money away for 5 years only to find out the camera you wanted has been discontinued. Apple would not only reap the benefits of some of the interest payments (The sponsoring bank would get the majority), but they would be able to increase brand presence and most importantly track they buyers behavior.
For example, if they are seeing that Apple credit card users are buying iMacs and the buying a third-party web cam instead of the iSight, they will instantly gain information on the iSight. maybe it's too overpriced. maybe it isn't being promoted enough. Maybe they need to try bundling it with computers in a promotion. This is all info that they would normally have to take educated guesses and rely on focus group assumptions to conclude.
The possibilities are endless for an Apple Credit Card and I can't wait to have one in my wallet. How about you?
Low Market Share Blues? Don't Blame the Marketing Department
If there is a consistent theme in the world of Mac commentary it is: "Apple's market share should be higher." Part of this fervent wish lies in the desire to see the pundit's personal computing choice validated by a vast sea of users. Others fear that with a less than three percent market share Apple is at least doomed to marginalization if not forced to leave the computing market completely. While still another troubled group of writers live in constant terror of complete Microsoft dominance.
Once the fact is established that the Mac's share of the market is too low for sustainability the arguments inexorably move to the question of improving the said computing platforms consumer base. When confronted with this question the many opinion mongers of all topics Macintosh place the blame squarely at the feet of Apple advertising. These people then exhort Apple to advertise in a manner that highlights the advantages inherent in a Cupertino designed computing device. With the problem noted and subsequently solved the author is free to reminisce about the halcyon days of Macintosh. Days of stratospheric market share when Mac themed publications littered the newsstands, an era when for every five PC owners you knew, you knew three Mac guys, a time when every office that had computers at least had one Mac wired to a LaserWriter.
As compelling as the arguments are they all suffer from the same logical fallacy: subverted support. The premise that Macs once held a massive chunk of the computing market is simply untrue, since their introduction Macs have been a niche player. The seemingly all too common perception that Macs were once wildly popular and challenging PC clones for computing dominance is in actuality a reflection on the enormous success of the Apple II instead of an accurate recollection of the Macintosh computing market. The juxtaposition of memories is understandable, before being utilized as inducements for new banking customers1 the Apple II was truly the market behemoth. For several years the Apple II had more software, the largest installed user base of any platform, and generally more computing karma than any competitor. This era of market dominance resulted in software coming out first (nearly always) for the Apple II, peripherals aimed only at Apple offerings, etcetera. When someone begins waxing poetic about the former glorified days of the Macintosh it is probable they are reflecting on the unbounded initial success of the Apple II. That's not to say that Mac market share hasn't been substantially higher in the past, it certainly has, in 1995 Mac market share briefly touched twelve percent2. Twelve percent is certainly a respectable slice of the computing pie but hardly the market making or breaking chunk that people seem to routinely reference.
While Apple advertising efforts have been controversial3 since the ad welcoming IBM to the ranks of computer manufacturers this article will stay targeted on post 1984 efforts. To get a true picture of the Macintosh influence and the effects of advertising an examination of years with the greatest market movement is clearly in order:
1984 is the most logical stepping off point. This year featured the introduction of the first Mac and the most famous Macintosh advertisement to date. The introduction of the first Mac combined with the Ridley Scott directed masterpiece resulted in a six percent slice of the computing pie. A fairly astounding achievement considering moving to the Mac meant abandoning all the comforts of your old platform. Macs did sport something never before seen in a consumer level computer: A graphical user interface. While derided at the time the "Big Brother" ad would come to be lauded by many as the greatest commercial of all time.
The next year the Mac's share of the computing market drops to a mere 2.6%. A drop of 3.4% may seem horrific in today's market but it is understandable if you realize that there weren't yearly refreshes. The 2.6% of the market were new Mac owners, not techno lusting upgraders. In fact when Apple got around to releasing a new Mac model in 1986 share climbed back to 4.2%. These years were not bereft of advertising, 1985's Super Bowl featured the somewhat forgotten lemmings commercial. The Mac’s identity as a decidedly different computer was being established.
1987 saw a nice jump in the Mac’s market share: a rebound to 6%. The jump in market share was coincident with the introduction of the Mac SE and Mac II. The Mac II, one recalls, was the first modular Mac. It resembled the PC clones in the basic design and could be outfitted with a nifty Apple color monitor. Mac market share bounced around the 5 to 6% level for the next four. But with no earth shattering product introductions 1987-90 were rather quiet in terms of market share with status quo being the norm. Advertising was uneventful.
In 1991 status quo went right out the window. Market share more than doubles reaching a respectable 11.2%. The obvious question is: What happened? After all, market share doesn't double in one year for no particular reason. Most people opine that 1991 was the time when Apple finally had a model for everyone, which is seemingly true. The low cost Classic had been introduced late in 1990, as was the first low cost color modular Mac was introduced (the unimaginatively named LC). Also from 1990 were the Macintosh Iifx (wicked fast) and the middle of the pack Mac Iisi. The majority of 1991 sales were comprised of people buying the 1990 models. While 1991 featured plenty of print ads touting Apple's expanded product line there were no television advertisements of note.
The next year (1992) the Mac's market share grew yet again to an even 12%. These were the great days if Mac market share is one's personal barometer of self-fulfillment. New models were introduced but nothing revolutionary. It is at this point the steady decline begins. Three years later (1995) Mac market share checks in at roughly 9%. This is still a reasonable share though it's clear that Mac's aren't going to be running the PC clones out of business. However unsettling the decline may have been the source of the market share erosion can't really be placed on the advertising gurus. These years featured the type of advertising people are still clamoring for: the "It Does More. It Costs Less. Its that Simple" campaign. The effort may have slowed the migration from the Mac but, obviously, it did not increase market share.
Spectators that found the slow drop in market share disconcerting were positively stunned in 1996. Mac market share drops to a more familiar 5.1%. A nearly 4% drop in market share is as unexpected as the huge gain of 1991. The drop is probably attributable to the release of Windows 95 by Microsoft. First time buyers would be hard pressed to see a substantial difference between a Mac and a PC. Sure the Macs icons looked a little cleaner but the were both systems were fairly polished windowed interfaces. Only by delving a bit more deeply into the system could you find the significant differences. It is also at this time that Apple went on the offensive in advertising to highlight the aforementioned differences. Apple fanatics were treated to perhaps some of the hardest hitting commercials ever: A series of commercials featuring a direct comparison to the foibles of Win95. However convincing and well made the commercials were the effect on sales was less than hoped for as evidenced by the massive drop in market share.
This was the beginning of the Modern Era of Mac. Market share continues a fairly steady slide to its current level. Advertising becomes more widely ridiculed and more "image" oriented. The "Think Different" campaign was roundly panned. The "Intel's Toast" ads were loved but failed to increase numbers of boxes moved and the memory of the "switcher" ads still linger. None of these ads had an immediate measurable impact on Mac sales.
So what does this trip through the history of Macs reveal? The first thing one concludes is that far from being a company that advertises only the ineffable qualities of the Mac Apple has advertised in nearly every conceivable manner: From head to head comparisons, ads featuring the ease of use of Macs, ads that catered specifically to the low cost of Macs and ads that proclaimed the Mac to be more powerful. The wide range and lack of yearly quantifiable impact of Apple advertising should quell the notion that Apple’s advertising is solely responsible for the Macs decline in popularity. By this point the casual reader has undoubtedly come to the conclusion that advertising does little or nothing for Mac sales. Indeed, the numbers for any particular year or associated with any particular campaign seem to justify this conclusion. Despite the ease at which one reaches the conclusion, it is untenable. Including the value of Apple’s brand name demonstrates the cumulative effect of Apple advertising throughout the years. Taking 2002 as an example (to minimize the effect of the iPod’s success) we note that the Apple brand was valued at a staggering $5.32 billion4. This is a remarkable achievement for a company with a 2.27% market share5 (inspection of the list reveals the only companies with PC exposure ahead of Apple are Microsoft and IBM). In short: Apple does have a minimal segment of the computing market but this is not due to the failure of Apple advertising, rather it is in spite of Apple advertising.
It is natural to wonder about the usefulness of brand value. One supposes it might come into play if a corporate merger of buyout was contemplated but other than that the utility seems questionable. Not so, brands represent relationships between consumers and corporations so a strong image, bolstered through the years by carefully planned advertising, can result in a very receptive marketplace if the company has something that lives up to the cultivated image. Witness the phenomenal success of the iPod. Consumers were unafraid to snap the things up as quickly as Apple could produce in part due to the image Apple had cultivated.
1ECN January February 1987
2All the figures used in this article are worldwide market share numbers as cited in Personal Computer Market Share: 1975-2002
3The "Welcome IBM, Seriously" advertisement was widely seen as conceding the computing market lead to IBM. An excellent discussion can be found at Learning from the advertising guru
4BusinessWeek Online: 2003 Global Brand Scoreboard
5It is natural to wonder about the usefulness of brand value. One supposes it might come into play if a corporate merger of buyout was contemplated but other than that the utility seems questionable. Not so, brands represent relationships between consumers and corporations so a strong image, bolstered through the years by carefully planned advertising, can result in a very receptive marketplace if the company has something that lives up to the cultivated image. Witness the phenomenal success of the iPod. Consumers were unafraid to snap the things up as quickly as Apple could produce in part due to the image Apple had cultivated.
Get Well Soon, Steve
Given the title of the previous article concerning Macworld Boston, we at Apple Matters would hate to think that we don't wish Steve all the best. The news that he has a rare form of cancer is a reminder that, as passionate as we are about Apple, health comes first. Steve, take your month off and rest up. You've given us all so much pleasure with Apple and Pixar and we are sure the company is in good hands.
