Ok, I said I wouldn't do this, but I can't help myself.
Darn you guys for bringing this upon us all...
A little history lesson:
Once upon a time, Apple really DID make products that were clearly superior.
In the home computer market, they had a natural advantage over the IBM/PC clones since they designed both the hardware AND the software.
This means that their products just worked properly without needing special drivers or worrying about third party hardware compatibility.
What made them truly superior however, was that this "one company" situation allowed them to adopt new concepts seemingly overnight, something that was nearly impossible on the MS Windows side of things.
For example, Macs had integrated digital audio support even in the late 80's, whereas IBM/PC's didn't until later when expensive third party hardware such as the Sound Blaster card with its own drivers was available and hopefully compatible with the software you were using. When CD-Roms first came out, you could plug an apple CD unit into a pre-CD era Mac, and it would just work by identifying itself to the OS. No drivers.
The Apple CPUs were also more efficient at certain processes. It is a little known fact that in the early 90's, Apple Motorola and IBM all teamed up together to design the next generation of home computer chip, using a concept called Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC). The idea here is that instead of boosting more Mhz to make a chip go faster, try to make it more efficient by requiring less steps to get the same answer. This would speed up computing times exponentially faster than trying to pump up the clock speed. It was supposed to be a collaborative effort to revolutionize the industry (not just for macs), and they called it the PowerPC chip.
The problem, however, is that the software has to be re-written to take advantage of it, otherwise you won't get any benefit at all. Since Apple also writes their software, Apple re-wrote their OS "overnight" to coincide with the release of this chip, however convincing Microsoft and the PC clone manufacturers do try this was a different story.
Microsoft and other third party developers weren't interesting in re-writing all their code for a new architecture unless it really took over as the new standard and it would never become the new standard unless the software was available to run on it.
I think IBM ended up using the PowerPC in some rare server-based solutions, but otherwise the PowerPC became a Mac-only game, never being adopted into the Windows platform.
So, the result of all this is that while the Windows PC was far more popular (cheaper hardware, more options available), the Mac was actually a superior device, albeit an unsung underdog. The RISC processing made certain applications, specifically graphics-oriented ones, actually give results in less time, and in that respect were faster than the Windows equivalent, even at lower Mhz clock speeds. This is why the Mac became a standard in the graphics workplace and environment. Apple embraced that concept and used it to market themselves as the "classier" computer, focusing on unique minimalist designs for their hardware and filling their OS with visually stunning effects to "elicit creativity".
However, fast forward to the last decade when AMD was giving Intel a run for their money. Intel had always come up with the latest architecture for Windows PCs until AMD started beating them to the punch. It became a race; Intel would release a chip, AMD would follow up with a faster version. Intel would release one faster than AMD, repeat process. Each one was taking turns playing catch-up with the other.
This was actually GREAT for the PC community because it created an artificial acceleration of released technology- the Windows PC chips were evolving at a rate far faster than Motorola could engineer for Apple.
At some point, Apple had to admit that perhaps they were NOT the fastest/most efficient computer in town anymore. This is why they adopted the Intel Core 2 Duo architecture, and once again re-wrote their OS to work on a new technology, a move that enfuriated many die hard Apple fans who consider it a defeat.
Apple has lost its status as the technically superior (hardware-wise) computer since it is actually now running the SAME EXACT x86 hardware as Windows PCs. The result is that you see people buying Macs and installing Windows, and you see people buying PC's and installing a hacked Apple OSX. They're pretty much interchangeable nowadays. Macs still are, and have always been more expensive than similarly spec'ed Windows PCs, so then what is the justification for spending more when the hardware is identical?
Thankfully for Apple, their saving grace is that they already had the reputation of the being the Artistic/Classier computer, so they started riding that in their marketing instead. They are no longer technologically superior, or even exclusive in their OS- You're paying for glitz and glam on the packaging, and rights to brag about being the latest member of the "Jobs' Squad".
About a decade ago, I was still a big fan of Apple products, and I hoped that one day they would finally get the credit they deserved. Now, thankfully they have far better marketing and are getting lots of recognition- but the problem is that now I feel they no longer deserve it.
When someone works in graphic design, and is told they "need to have mac to do that", it makes me angry. When someone thinks the iPod is the quintessential media player, despite the fact that it has far less features than cheaper devices, it makes me angry. When someone thinks that their iPhone is somehow superior to... well, then ANYTHING really (seriously, the "free with activation phones" often support more features than the iPhone) it makes me angry.
Am I angry at Apple?
No. I'm angry at the people.
Their products are good, and easy to use especially for people who aren't so technically inclined. However, their products also lack advanced features and the raw power that is available elsewhere. The problem is when people are fooled into thinking they are techincally superior in some way. If everyone would see what Apple is- namely, a company that offers good-looking simple products for people who don't want or can't figure out the more complicated versions- I don't think even Yitzter would have a problem with them.
