Of course these days PCs and Macs are much more alike than they’ve ever been in the past. To use that is. From an aesthetic perspective, let’s face it, Macs are just nicer (OK so that’s a huge generalisation because there are so many PC manufacturers and I haven’t been able to check them all out). It’s difficult to pin down why; after all, there’s a keyboard, a screen and it’s made of nice silver metal. But each of these individual elements is just a little bit nicer.
The screen’s the most obviously superior thing to my last Dell PC. It’s shiny and clear and just makes me want to watch DVDs on it (and the PC never did that). The keyboard’s pretty standard…expect for the hugely brilliant fact that it’s illuminated! And that is just awesome, because sometimes I like using my computer in the half-light of my lounge in the evening.
Many will argue that the PC vs Mac debate – or more specifically the Microsoft vs Apple battle – isn’t about the hardware, it’s about the software (because Microsoft doesn’t make computers). But you can’t really separate the two, can you?
On the software side, I was expecting a pretty significant learning curve in using the MacBook, given my legacy of using Windows added to the fact that the bloke in the Apple store convinced me to overlook Office for Mac and go with iWork. It would be a lie to say that there hasn’t been any news things to get used to, but many are extremely intuitive and, like I say, Macs and PCs are more similar to use today than they’ve ever been. Hell, you can even set the touchpad up to have both left- and right-click buttons. I’ll be honest though, the spreadsheet, document and presentation applications in iWork are nowhere near as rich as those in Office. But I think they’ll do (just about).
I think there are massive challenges for the PC manufacturers. PCs, Windows and Office were largely designed to meet the needs of business and desktop computing in the workplace. But these days – with digital photography, video, watching movies, music – the computer has become a much more central part of our everyday lives. And we want things that play such a central role to look nice. I’ve had quite a few people pass through the house in the last week and say: “Oh! You’ve got a Mac” (or, to be more accurate: “Zut alors! Tu as un Mac. J’adore le Mac. Et le fromage.”) That never happened with the Dell…
It’s a cool bit of technology though, without doubt. But I’m under no illusions that just having something cool makes you cool. A geek in Prada shades is still a geek. And as someone recently tweeted: “Just because you own an iPhone doesn’t mean you invented the bloody thing.”
Thing is, sometimes I fee that Microsoft tries far too hard to be a bit cool. You only need to follow some of the company’s tweeters and bloggers to see how they all jump onto anything Microsoft does that might be a bit cool and try to tell everyone about it (Bing being a good example, or Surface). If you have to stand on the table and shout about the cool thing you’ve done, then it loses its cool. Just do great stuff, let people discover it themselves and they’ll tell everyone for you.
Coincidentally, I was reading this article from the excellent trendwatching.com yesterday. It’s quite long, but worth ten minutes. It’s all about the key elements of the new world of transparency in which we live and in which companies are operating. The bit that caught my eye, however, is the very last bit which discusses the countertrend, “Openly Opaque.” Apple is one company that’s listed as demonstrating the countertrend, along with others including Virgin Atlantic and IKEA.
The argument goes that some brands can get away with being less than completely transparent if they consistently delivers and surprises their customers. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily only about delivery and delight; I think it also has to do with emotional connections and trust. If you trust a company, or if a brand has connected with you on a positive emotional level, then you don’t need the proof that total transparency delivers.
Apple is opaque. There’s a little bit of mystery…and mystery is always a bit sexy. We all know that most people look better with at least a few clothes on than totally naked, but are too many brands too willing to strip bare these days and expose themselves warts and all?
Where’s the sexiness in that?
September 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I am slightly worried Pinny has become a born again Mac slightly after the horse has bolted. Agreed that for a long time Apple had the field to itself with an audience focused on design and geek chic but increasingly other OEMs are developing sophisticated and emotional products that talk to values broader than the traditional Apple niche moving computing out of the consumer tech base towards a broader lifestyle connection. Is the explanation that Pinny has joined the French software developer industry?
September 8, 2009 at 2:17 pm
As a fellow Mac aficionado(an antedeluvian iBook G4 in my case – blame the journalism stint) I certainly agree that Apple has traditionally streets ahead in terms of industrial design. That said, the opposition are catching up fast – even that (hellishly overpriced) new Nokia netbook has been favourably compared with an Apple in terms of its look and feel. Apple to me is the Audi of PC makers – whether or not you like the overall experience, the looks and quality are always ahead of the competition. It wouldn’t be too difficult for rivals to overtake them, though, assuming they can spot the next Jonathan Ive. Apple is a magic brand but Sony is not far behind in the rankings, lest we forget.
When Apple made the much-publicised switch to Intel a few years back, many pundits argued that this would prove to be the top of a precipitous slope that would see the Cupertino firm eventually become simply a high-end maker of IBM PCs – a Lexus to Lenovo’s Toyota, if you like. Some are already talking of Snow Leopard as being Apple’s Vista – it will be interesting to see how that all pans out.
There is a dark side to the Apple design dream, too, and it comes in the form of in-built obsolence. This topic actually came up earlier today in my conversations with a totally unrelated client, but the fact is that Apple’s practices are decidedly questionable here. Whereas an old Dell or HP machine can be kept going for the best part of a decade, replacing various parts as they breakdown, the same is not possible with many Apple machines, for which slick design is lionised above every other consideration. Hence, all those lovely-looking MacBooks have a definite use-by date, which is criminal from an environmental point of view.
On a related note, analyst guru Rob Enderle posted an interesting article today on a related topic, which is worth a look – a comparison of the environmental records of Apple, HP, Lenovo and Sony: -
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Does-Green-Matter-to-You-68052.html?wlc=1252401287
As a final aside, of course there are similarities between OS X and Microsoft systems – the latest versions of Windows are basically OS X rip-offs in terms of look and feel. Redmond has learned well from the usability disaster that was Vista.
September 8, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Dear former/current improverished journalist. I disagree about sell-by dates on MacBooks. Chosen carefully, they will last a lot longer than your average Windows PC and continue to look good, thru good industrial design and choice of materials.
If my 12″ PowerBook G4 hadn’t taken an ill-advised base jump off the bed and hit a solid wooden floor, last year, it would still be going strong. The aluminium finish was strong and the keyboard and mouse pad immaculate. Battery life was more than adequate. I will concur that earlier MacBooks suffer a little in terms of production values. But some of that was down to preproduction material issues, and let’s be honest white, whether a computer, a shirt or a pair of sneakers, is never a particular practical colour for the rigours of everyday life. I personally plumped for the black MacBook a few years ago, which I picked up in the US, and it’s survived the rigors of international travel, work, rest and play to a reasonable extent. I think introduction of innovative design elements like the MagSafe charging port, few moving parts, e.g. no flaps for ports also add to the longeivity of the device. I destroyed not one but three motherboards on my PowerBook 144 and G3 (c. 1993 and c. 1999) by tripping over the powercable, causing a short circuit. Doh!
I’m now using a unibody MacBook Pro with all the tactile and visual bells and whistles that Pinny has discovered and it is the best machine I have ever owned. Period. It’s also one Apple’s greenest machines with minimal packaging and Energy Star efficiency ratings. It should happily see me for many happy years of mobile computing…bedroom base jumps withstanding…but the most important thing is it’s a computer that most owners carry and use with care. Not just because it’s a great piece of industrial design, nor the cost of acquisition, but because it’s personal to them and has all their content on it, neatly organised in iPhoto and iTunes…Like Pinny, I never felt the same about my corporate Dell, but do you wonder if Apple employees treat their corporate machines like we did? I bet they don’t!
September 8, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I think there’s a recognition that in many ways Macs and PCs serve two different markets. My brother tells me (and he knows this stuff…in fact it’s confirmed by the Apple documentation) that I can effectively split this machine into two laptops, one running Apple’s OS and the other running Windows. But that all sounds a bit schizophrenic to me.
By the way Tom, what’s ‘obsolence’?
*aghast*
September 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm
don’t you mean it sounds a bit schizophrenic to both of you?
September 8, 2009 at 3:43 pm
The ‘sex’ (or the devil?) in a Mac is in the detail.
Whilst Apple includes some hardware design alternatives (like the backlit keyboard) there is little that springs to mind that is measurably different, anymore, from other hardware. The ThinkPad has a keyboard Torch and the Vaio is every bit as sleek as a Mac offering similar front room appeal.
It’s not about the hardware. Making a buying decision (hardware aesthetics aside) to my mind is about the software.
To that end, The Mac (and, importantly, by association Apple) has become synonymous with the ability to ‘just work’. It’s a delight to plug in a variety of different equipment (video, cameras, ‘phones etc.) and have iPhoto pop up not only asking if you’d like to copy any duplicates but whether you’d like to erase the device when you’re finished (would you like fries with that?). Images associated in Address Book are automatically transferred (and miniaturised) when syncing an iPhone. A surprising but beautifully obvious feature, when you pause to think about it.
Macs are great for personal media consumption, management and sharing. But I would think twice about working ‘in anger’ e.g. sharing spreadsheets across multiple networked computers; saving and restoring content from the cloud – Live Mesh is currently broken under Snow Leopard – or building and sharing graphic intensive slides in anything other than PowerPoint. Ease of use and sharing for collaboration become completely different considerations in the work place than at home.
The Mac’s appeal over the PC (whether running Windows or Linux) ironically, is that it offers a unique experience, for personal use. I can hear a tribe of designers sharpening their Mighty Mice.
Running other operating systems on a Mac (something else it handles quite well) detracts from the overall Apple ‘appeal’ and is tantamount (risking extending the analogy too far) to computing adultery.
September 8, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The software Pinny refers to is called Parallels and yes, it does indeed enable Windows to itself be run inside a window, via a Mac. Clever clever. Although why one would want to run Windows on a Mac is beyond me. Analogies about Fiat engines in Ferrari chassis spring to mind.
I don’t believe the two different audiences concept any more, either – witness the number of MacBooks around the office these days.
Time was, life was simple and if you wanted to use Quark, you HAD to buy an Apple. The software simply didn’t work on other machines.
Nowadays, I suspect that design snobbery rather than design requirements is the prime reason for Apple purchase – there are increasingly few other differentiators.
Pinny’s sense of wonder at discovering what many Apple customers have known for years is endearing but one has to ask why this Damascene conversion has taken until now? Could a recent and rather significant birthday have been to blame? Can switching to Apple now be considered the IT equivalent of buying a sportscar and shagging one’s secretary?
September 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm
[...] enough, having bought a MacBook a couple of weeks ago, I’ve been holding forth on the whole PC vs. Mac debate over on the Edelman Tech blog. Another case of the PC world trying [...]
September 8, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Ah, Tom, yes…I think there’s something in that. A mid-life crisis touches all aspects of one’s lifestyle. But then I couldn’t go putting a shonky old PC in my new lovely leather messenger bag now, could I?
September 8, 2009 at 5:55 pm
It works in many different ways some turn to worn technology icons for status others refute pedantry for typo ridden waffle.