Apple Is Really A Hardware Company

Parallels has stated that their next beta version will include 3D-acceleration support, so it is possible that in the not-too-distant future, Vista will run in all of its translucent glory from within Parallels.

Macbooks are comparably priced (if not lower, in many cases) to similar Windows laptops.

Actually on the official Apple site in the UK, the cheapest MacBook is £749.00 (US$1,469.62) with 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 512MB memory, 60GB hard drive1, Combo drive.

After, a quick 30 second check on the web, I have found a similarly spec'd Acer TravelMate at £469.98 (US$922.244). (TM4233 Core2Duo 512MB 80GB DVD±RW XPPro)

I know that they are not identical products but the difference is around 60%!

Apple computers tend more to compare with the high-end PC price range and that is their target.

In the US, the cheapest MacBook (same specs as you listed) is $1099, or about £560.00

But the cheapest PC laptop is probably less too.

I don't know how it is outside of the US, but I just looked on the Dell website, and a Macbook costs about $200 more than a very similarly equipped Inspiron after promotions.

But, in its defense, iLife is included, and the build quality is much higher. Trust me, I'm on my first Macbook, after three Dell laptops: Windows Movie Maker f---ing blows, Picasa 2 is almost as good as iPhoto, and my Macbook has no case flex. So, in terms of just what's under the hood, Macs command a premium, but you get what you pay for.

OS X's sleep function and the Macbook's durability together make my Macbook a great purchase for its price point. Your mileage may vary.

Jobs was quoting Alan Kay, who said "People who are serious about software should make their own hardware."

While Apple makes it's money from hardware sales, it is the software and the tight integration with the hardware that drives those sales. I didn't buy a PowerBook because it was a cool looking laptop (though that helped), I bought a PowerBook to run OS X. I highly doubt Apple would be held in such high regard if they only made good hardware.

And Cary, Boot Camp will be a feature in Leopard, and the rumor is Apple will charge for the stand-alone Boot Camp product.

The question is how long the windows of opportunity this presents will remain open when (and if) other companies start to learn similar practices of design in their products.

I don't know if it's necessarily something to "learn," after all look at the various MP3 players that look like an iPod, but don't hold a candle to it.

Thanks, Andrew. I couldn't think of the exact quote and who said it, so I appreciate you pointing it out.

It isn't about "learning." It is something that Apple, or Jobs, understands about the industry and that other companies don't: a computer product is more than just a commodity, it is more than just a product even. A computer, from its creation and to today, has the purpose of making a person's life easier, more productive, and inherently better. In other words, a computer is not just a commodity to be assembled and sold, something that anyone can make, but rather a very personal object, one that requires a purpose, and a dedication to designing it to do just that.

That is Apple's proprietary advantage: the dedication and vision that Jobs brings to the company. Jobs turns his product development from a science into an art.

Thank you for the clarification, I had heard that Boot Camp would be part of Leopard, and somehow got the two pieces of information confused.

There is more to learning similar practices than trying to create the same design as another product. What these other companies have the potential to adopt is the same interest in designing their products with simplicity and efficiency in use like Apple gained with the iPod.

There are some MP3 players on the market that do compete favorably with the iPod on functionality and or additional features, but Apple also built an Ace in the whole with the development of iTunes as a compatible product.

There are some MP3 players on the market that do compete favorably with the iPod on functionality and or additional features, but Apple also built an Ace in the whole with the development of iTunes as a compatible product.

Agreed, however it seems a lot of companies try to compete on the feature list, instead of improving on the core functionality. I'd rather have a few devices that each do a few things very well than one device that tries to do everything and does it poorly (the MP3 functionality on my phone, for example).

Of course, sometimes we don't know (or cannot say) how well a single device can do multiple things until somebody makes the effort to build that functionality into an existing design, or tries to create a new design for existing functions. Even companies that do come up with a good design can fail if they bring it out to late to capture the market. Which may be why they seem to scramble to catch (or create) the latest fad, in the hope that it will turn into an ongoing trend for them to profit from in the long term.

This holds true for every industry, but seems more pronounced in computers and consumer electronics because they are more subject to the rapid pace of change brought about in the underlying technology.

I'm sure even the iPod had several prototypes that were sent back to the drawing board.
And half the speculation surrounding Apple announcements is based on the question: "Why didn't they build X into the design in the first place?"; with the other half based on the question: "How can we take advantage of them not building X into the design in the first place?"