Some people just don't get it. Take Bear Stearns analyst Andrew
Neff, who thinks all PCs are pretty much the same. He's spent
months and months trying to prescribe which PC makers should merge
with which - and saying Apple needs to move to an Intel processor.
Of course, Neff second-guesses every Apple decision: will
this expand the base? does it make sense to sell OS X before it
ships with computers?
Look at the PC industry: Gateway, Dell, Compaq, H-P, IBM,
Micron, and enough other names to fill a page. They all build boxes
running Microsoft Windows on processors using Intel's instruction
set. They each have about as much personality as a blank CD.
In fact, there may be more local clone shops in your area than
PC manufacturers on any Top Ten list. We have plenty here in Grand
Rapids, Michigan, each more than happy to throw together your
choice of case, power supply, motherboard, CPU, hard drive, sound
card, video card, CD-RW drive, memory, and operating system at a
reasonable price.
Be Different
Andrew Neff understands that part of the personal computer
industry, moving interchangeable boxes. At heart, Dells and
Gateways, IBMs and Microns, Compaqs and local clones share almost
every component. The big difference is the nameplate and maybe some
external plastics.
Apple's not like that. While the entire PC industry has grown up
to clone a 1981 standard set by IBM and updated by Microsoft and
Intel, Apple uses a different CPU and operating system.
That's part of what's too different for Andrew Neff. He
doesn't seem to understand that the PowerPC processor is a very
different beast from Pentiums, Celerons, Athlons, and Durons. It's
a more efficient CPU, performing at up to twice the
performance of a Pentium at the same clock speed. Put that more
efficient processor inside a computer, and Steve Jobs consistently
demonstrates how Apples "MHz challenged" computers outperform the
Wintel powerhouses.
In fact, at Macworld Expo in January, Jobs demonstrated Apple's
733 MHz Power Mac G4 handily
outperforming a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 computer at the very tasks the P4
was optimized for. If Intel had a 2 GHz P4, it would have matched
performance with the G4/733 on this set of tasks.
Even more interesting, Bare Feats has been benchmarking the dual
processor G4/533 against the single processor G4/733 - and a pair
of slower processors beats the single faster processor in five of
seven tests. Since a single G4/733 matches a nonexistent 2 GHz
Pentium 4, a dual G4/533 would outperform that.
The real irony here is that last
year's dual G4/450 would also outperform the fastest P4
system made today.
MHz Doesn't Matter
Rating a computer strictly by MHz makes no more sense than
choosing a vehicle based on miles per gallon, horsepower, or
acceleration. If you need to haul freight, you need horsepower. If
you want to win races, you need acceleration. If you want to save
money, you look for a higher MPG rating. And you won't find all
three in the same vehicle.
A computer contains a multitude of components that influence
performance. Processor speed is one of those, and MHz is only one
aspect of it. With the exception of the Pentium 4, each new
generation of processors offers improved efficiencies over the
previous one, providing more horsepower from the same fuel.
All things being equal, a 1 GHz Pentium III computer will
outperform a 733 MHz one, but all things are rarely equal. And even
in the Wintel world, buyers have to understand the chip hierarchy:
MHz for MHz, Athlon outperforms PIII. If you're after performance,
you have to know which CPUs perform best, how much better they are
than the competition, and then compare MHz speed.
But that's for the power user - the video producer, CAD worker,
graphic designer, and serious gamer. For them, acceleration and
horsepower count for everything; miles per gallon are not the
issue. For that tech savvy crowd, MHz does matter.
For most users, today's computers are fast enough, whether
that's a 400 MHz iMac or a 733 MHz generic Windows box. In fact,
Apple goes out of its way not to include MHz ratings in
model numbers. There is no "iMac 600" as far as Apple is concerned,
just a fastest model.
Apple has some huge advantages in this market, but it needs to
learn how to market them.
- Branding
- No brand is better known than Apple.
- No model is better know than iMac.
- PowerBook is almost a synonym for laptop.
- Consumer
- No computer is easier to set up than the iMac.
- No Wintel box has iMovie and iTunes.
- No OS is easier to pick up than the Mac OS - and OS X may be
even better in that respect.
- Technical
- No Celeron or Pentium has the energy efficiency of a
PowerPC.
- No Windows computer has the processor efficiency of a
PowerPC.
- Windows doesn't offer the same level of hardware/OS integration
as the Mac OS.
- Apple has never promoted an OS by telling the world how many
tens of thousands of bugs it has. They've never had to.
- Viruses are practically nonexistent for the Mac OS
Some of these advantages are tied to the PowerPC, so it would be
foolish for Apple to adopt the power-hungry, more costly Intel
processors for their computers. Of course, such a change would also
mean a lot of existing Mac software wouldn't work, giving Apple yet
another reason to stick with the PowerPC family.
Apple has all the advantages except for two:
- At least nine out of ten computers out there run some form of
Windows. Apple is different, which some people find
unacceptable.
- Performance geeks and computer support staff, the people many
neophytes come to for advice, are probably 98-99% Windows users.
They are going to recommend what they know, not something
different.
Consolidate or Die?
Those two advantages outweigh all the snail and flaming bunny
suit ads in the world. They're also the reason it really doesn't
matter to the consumer what brand of PC they buy - or whether
Gateway merges with another PC maker. Consolidation might slightly
improve the economy of scale for a particular brand. That's all it
would do.
By remaining different in both OS and hardware, Apple is a clear
alternative to boring beige boxes of interchangeable parts and
nameplates. And the company has grown its base each year since the
iMac.
Apple understands that MHz isn't everything. People want easy
Internet access. They want to burn CDs. Some want to make movies.
Apple addresses real needs, not our lust for power - although they
can provide that when we need it.
Apple's greatest strength is being different. Better integration
of hardware and software. More consistency between applications.
Higher reliability than the Wintel world. A longer practical life
for their computers. An easier to learn operating system.
To top it off, Apple has a small but dedicated band of Mac users
willing to take on the performance geeks and computer support staff
in explaining why the Mac is a real alternative to Windows and a
better choice. Unlike Andrew Neff, we get it.
The PC world can watch brands consolidate and die, but the Mac
lives on.
