Apple Wants Too Much From Long Time Users
Spend any amount of time devoted to Macs and you’ll learn one thing: Macs are in a constant state of flux. The OS may be the greatest thing ever, it may be free from viruses and malware but it seems as though that is because Apple is so fluid and the scammer ne’er-do-wells can’t quite get a fix on the machines. The latest example of this fluidity is the switch to Intel.
There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to the Intel Apple alliance: the “Apple blows for making the change” line of reasoning and those pundits who maintain that the future for Apple is brighter than the core of a fusion reactor because of the switch. The truth, as it usually does, probably lies somewhere in the middle. IBM and Freescale (nee Motorola) surely deserve some of the blame for not being able to meet the targets they had projected. Still, the blame should be shared by Apple for, at least, not going with Intel sooner. Yet in the end the reasons and the timing don’t really matter, what matters is that you’re being forced to go through yet another transition.
We can summarily dispense with the Apple // to Mac transition since so few users made the jump and focus on the more recent demands foisted by Apple on it’s computing faithful. The first major transition was the 68XXX to the PowerPC architecture. For those of you new to the platform or with short memories it wouldn’t seem like it would have been a big deal. In fact when the transition was explained it seemed as though it would be fairly painless. Applications would ship with code for both architectures and the older applications could be run with newer chips in emulation (sound familiar?). This meant you could still by programs for you Centris 660AV and your PowerMac 7100 could run older programs that were not optimized for the new architecture. The reality was a little different (surprise) than the promises. If you had a 68XXX based machine you probably found a program to strip the PowerPC code out of your FAT Applications. The process was tedious but it did free up hard drive space which was, much more so than now, a precious commodity. If you were fortunate enough to own a PowerPC you quickly learned that life was much better if all your programs were compiled with PowerPC specific code. Hence if you had a fat wallet and wanted the best experience possible out of your Mac you upgraded all your software.
Then there is the recent transition to OS X. The process was, to put it mildly, very painful. If you ran programs in classic the computer seemed to crawl. If you wanted to scan something in the early days of OS X you quickly gave up and booted into OS 9. The hassle associated with using what amounted to a dual boot system was enormous. In the end the transition meant buying a new scanner and repurchasing all your software. No big deal if you just use iMovie and AppleWorks but for those folks with substantial cash investment in Photoshop or Dreamweaver the expense was not negligible.
That is the major problem with the transition to Intel. It is not so much that Apple went with the supposed “enemy.” It is the hassle placed, yet again, on end users. This time your peripherals should continue working but will you really want to use Photoshop via Rosetta? Will Quark actually release an Intel OS X version before 2010? Answers to both questions are probably “No.” And frankly those answers are unpalatable. To use myself as an example I use Microsoft Office. I purchased Office ‘98 for what seemed like a fantastic amount of money at the time. A few years later I was purchasing Office X. Office X doesn’t have any features that I require when compared to ‘98 save one: It actually runs natively on OS X. While many people think the burden placed on developers will be onerous one suspects the software developers aren’t feeling too put upon by this whole transition deal, well unless they see those big fat dollars signs in their bank account as a major headache.’
It would be remiss not to note that Steve Jobs promised support for both processors for the foreseeable future. That stated it is also easily noted that Apple likes to sell computers. As important to the company’s cash flow as the iPod has become computers still account for a substantial amount of revenue and profits. Hence it is a safe bet that at some point, probably about the time the last PowerPC powered Mac rolls off the sub contractor’s assembly line, that Apple will start pushing for you to purchase a new Intel based Mac. Of course support won’t be instantaneously and unilaterally dropped, rather you can expect to witness a slowly strengthening stream of features that only work on the Intel based machines. At some point you’ll succumb, perhaps it will be to get the latest bit of iCandy or some new must have feature, and you’ll buy an Intel based Mac. Before you do that make sure you’ve got some extra cash put aside for software.
And therein lies the problem. The average Mac user is the one who is going to take the biggest hit. It is not the new hardware that is the problem, people love new hardware. It is the investment in new software that users don’t truly want or need. For most people the original version of Final Cut Express is perfectly adequate and an OS X compatible version of Photoshop does everything they desire. It could be successfully argued that most mainstream applications just don’t have a lot of functionality left to add, that the developers are pushing pure bloat instead actual enhancements. Unfortunately that choice will soon be taken from us, we’re buying new software weather we want to or not.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
You say that Macs are in a constant state of flux. Well open your eyes a little wider and take in the entire store. Technology is in a constant state of flux! In just 10 years I’ve bought 3 totally different kinds of printers - B&W impact, inkjet, and laser. In just 6 years I’ve bought Palm PDAs with 3 different cable interfaces. And this is just a small sample. You are right, Macs are constantly in flux but that is the norm of an emerging technology and yes, I think it is fair to say that the computer industry is in the elder days of emerging technology.
In your final paragraph you claim that it is the Mac user who loses and I think you are completely wrong. First, those who don’t want to switch to Intel don’t have to right away. At my store I sold a G5 just last week to a small business owner who finally decided it was time to switch to OS X. The computer it replaced was a PM 7200 running OS 8.6. The fact that Macs do last so long and that a thriving market for old equipment exists means that all of us who own PowerPC computers and are perfectly happy don’t have to switch when Apple does.
More importantly however, the fact that Apple is able to recognize when a technological dead end is approaching means that we don’t have to deal with issues that Windows users do. How more stable and nimble would Windows be if it weren’t backwards compatible with DOS, Win3.1, Win95, and Win98? Would I experience fewer crashes, would my computer cost less, if my new PC didn’t have all those legacy ports in back?
Finally, I find it amazing how you, and so many other Mac ‘journalists’ are rewriting the history of the transition to the PowerPC. To read about it today, that transition was painful leaving us the choice of running old software slowly or spending money on native software. Gee, back when the transition happened we were all amazed at how well it worked and how smoothly the transition was and how many developers made native software available for nothing or at very low cost.
But hey, I guess if you had nothing to bitch about you couldn’t write a column, right?
It would take more space than is available here to list the applications (ok, ok, so most of them were games - Clive Barker’s Undying, Microsofts own Midtown Madness, etc.) that were instantly incompatible when Windows XP came out. Sure, some of them got a patch later on - but nothing quite disappoints like that initial crash on a brand new operation system. And Windows XP wasn’t even a hardware change, and Microsofts own “Run Win9X apps on XP” application never did much of anything right. Is this expecting too much from Microsoft users? Maybe. But as technology moves forward so must those who use it - bringing their checkbooks in tow. The vast advantages that XP presented me personally over win9x made it worthwhile and I see this as a similar situation. If one is dedicated to the Mac, great. You certainly never HAVE to buy into anything new, it’s not as though we all can’t still Photoshop with an older version on a 233MHz iMac. It worked then, it still works now.
The point is this: if you are tech-hungry then you need to be expecting this relentless advance and just accept it and keep your credit cards ready. If you’re not, then there’s not a whole lot to notice, you’ll still buy a new PC or Mac or whatever in the same increments you always have. So then, is Apple taking advantage of us religious Mac-Zealot tech-nuts? Not really. Not with Mactel’s anyway. Charging $30 for a thick rubber condom to protect my iPod is where the scam is. Compared to that kind of mark-up anything Mac-related seems like a deal.
Sorry, but I agree with Chris. The move to Power PC was AGONIZING. The shop I worked in was very tight with the money. They might upgrade some hardware, but software was too much to ask. I don’t want to relive those days.
The Classic OS9 “fix” is much more functional (though still frustrating) than the suppsoed solutions to moving to a Power PC architecture at the time.
It was brutal - and this coming from someone who fought tooth and nail to keep my Apple IIe…thinking the Mac would go away…
If there’s one thing Apple knows, it’s that their loyal base will not only bear these changes without complaint, they will embrace them with giant smiles on their faces and vicious claws for anyone who dares criticize.
In fact, justifying a hardware change is child’s play. I’ve seen them find reasons why the irreplaceable battery in the Ipod was no big deal or why the Apple devotion to the one-button mouse is actually a good thing. So a hardware transition requiring an emulator that turns your new Mactel into a G3 for your existing applications ain’t nothing but a thang.
What you’re saying is not wrong but it should be noted that is also partially the user’s desires. I know someone who has a blue & white G3 that’s running fine and they are more than happy with OS9, PS5 and Quark5 (I think it’s 5) - working on designs and so forth. I know someone who used a Mac SE until they bought a G4 three years ago (talk about maiking a quantum leap) - they were fine and didn’t see the need to upgrade. Different people have different needs. I got offered a great deal on an eMac and was just going to shuffle it off but it’s a pretty nice machine for doing basic stuff. It’s running 10.3 and PS7, Firefox and lots of other stuff. I don’t intend to upgrade it and unless the monitor goes, I can see using this machine for 5 years - other than potential speed and compatibility with new versions of software - there’s nothiong so startling that I need to upgrade this machine - it should run just fine. So, in some cases, it’s just an internal need (perceived or otherwise) that you have to be up to speed with the latest and greatest. There’s nothing on my eMac I’m running now that would require a Dual G5. Sure, I’d love a dual G5 but will the extra $2k really buy me $2k worth of use?
Regardless of the switch to Intel, we do want a platform that is getting better and not dying - otherwise, we’d all be running Amigas but that doesn’t mean we immediately switch over and feel the need to.
Of course, life will be easier if we never had to add that extra dimension to our decision but we face that decision every so often anyway - especially in purchasing - new car - same dealer? different dealer? etc ... we choose to live in a complicated world and somethings that means we have to make extra annoying decisions ... half & half, whole, lowfat, non-fat, soy, whipped cream? ... that’s just the way it is ...
jbelkin,
That is an excellent point, after all when you buy a computer you generally buy it for it can do at the time of purchase not for what it will be able to do three years from now.
I suppose it is probably the internal desire to have the latest and greatest that motivates many computer buyers, and I wouldn’t exempt myself. You know that feeling that others are experiencing a much better time with the computer than you. That feeling that you are somehow missing out. Either that or some of those spams about genetalia size are a little to persuasive. In any event you’re quite correct, if you feel the need to live o n the bleeding edge it is going to be pricey.
That said, I must note that as a writer for AppleMatters it is absolutely imperative that my machine not be more than a week or so old. At least that is what i tell the wife.
chris: lmao. I must try that line!
Gotta agree, Chris. there is a “tax” in being an Apple user.
Whether it’s the regular OS upgrades, annual software upgrades or the things you talk about, Apple don’t make it easy to lag back.
On the timing of the switch to Intel? I think it is immaculate. What better time to switch than when riding a wave of success. It is not the act of a company desperately clutching at straws to stay alive. This switch is made from a position of strength so therefore has the best opportunity for success.
For Apple, the timing couldn’t be better. For the user, yes we are going to end up feeling it in the hip pocket. Which of course means, for Apple, the timing couldn’t be better…
On the timing of the switch to Intel? I think it is immaculate. What better time to switch than when riding a wave of success.
I agree in one sense. If it is at all in Apple’s game plan to make a genuine attempt at double-digit market share for the Mac, then your best bet is to make a transition like this NOW instead of waiting until you’ve gotten the less fanatical switchers/adders into the fold.
You just can’t pull stuff like this on them the way you can with the loyal user-base. Yes, the switchers/adders will inevitably go through this same sort of transition with Windows, particularly when Longhorn comes out, but you’re trying to assure them that the Mac is BETTER, not just more of the same, only with a premium price tag.
On the other hand, with Mac’s wave of success, there’s nothing that can put the kibosh on that momentum like a huge and unsure hardware transition right in the middle of it, especially one with a year lead time.
Chris:
I have been through each one of the transitions that you mention, and I believe that Apple’s change management techniques are singificantly improving.
For example, I recently upgraded one of my computers to Tiger and I have had only very minor issues to correct. The upgrade process was extremely smooth.
Along those lines, I am not as worried about the shift to Intel chips as many people seem to be. Apple has apparently been working on this shift for five years and believes that it is ready to make the change with as little impact on users as possible.
I also believe that it is possible that they have made some choices that will make the transition even simpler than most people can imagine. My theory is that the Intel chips that Apple has chosen will be Intel’s RISC based XScale technology instead of their CISC based x86 chips. Using RISC chips eases the software transition considerably, both for Apple and for other Mac developers. It also provides Intel with a new market that can showcase their RISC capabilities which have been under development for more than 15 years.
I expanded on that theory in my recent post titled Apple’s Intel decision - does it necessarily mean x86?.
I would be interested in any comments on the logic or the theory itself.
Very interesting and insightful, Rod. My own thoughts are that Apple will go x86. This has the benefits of:
- showing Windows users what can really be done with an x86 CPU
- bringing people into the flock more gently as they always have an out - i.e. if they don’t like their Mac, they can always wipe it and install Windows (not that Apple would ever suggest that). On the other hand, Apple might not want users to be able to give up on their Macs so easily… so maybe for that reason they would go XScale.
Also, the machines Apple have loaned developers are all x86. Admittedly it wouldn’t surprise if Apple came out and said - “Here, we’re going XScale, those universal binaries you’ve all coded will work on it without changes.” The downside is that developers wouldn’t be able to develop over the next 12 months for the advantages of the XScale chip.
But you might be right, this is Apple, and as this article of Chris’s says, Apple do like to test their users’ loyalty at times.
I have to agree with Chris, that there is a substantial tax for being a Mac user. MS Office and other applications often cost more. I had to buy a number of upgrades when moving to Tiger, and my Tiger experience was very painful on one machine. I was at Apple during the PPC and OS X migrations. I saw far more resources going into the PPC migration. A lot of the compatibility issues that Apple tracked in the PPC migration are now left to the user community. I got frustrated with Dreamweaver and just installed Nvu since it is free. I’m tired of paying a software tax just to keep my software running. I don’t need new features, I would like iDVD, iTunes, third party apps and iPhoto to run well and not crash or hang randomly. It’s really time to clean up the problems and get the user interface back under control.
Finally we may never know why Apple moved to Intel, but in the end it was about making more money and that money comes from users.
Rod,
That is an interesting theory. I have poked around quite a bit and I am left with the firm impression that Apple will be going X86. Yet the idea that Apple will go X scale is intriguing. By going Xscale Steve Jobs could keep standing up at Macworlds and touting the Mac’s hardware superiority. On the other hand Apple has said that it won’t stop users from installing windows on the new Macs. It seems that xscale will not run XP so I’m left guessing that it is an x86 future.