The Brand Is All Apple Has

Another great read is at Amazon with Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple That is a great book to read for anyone envolved with technology OR marketing.

Uh, this is odd. Suddenly Chimera breaks your site. It was fine yesterday, today i get the text-only version for losers.
what changed?

Marian: Got the same problem. Reload, and it's back to normal. Cache problem?

yip, fixed now. i feel better - as though the bouncer has just remembered who i am.

I thought the Wired article wasn't all that bad. A bit over-simplified, but Apple's marketing is quite amazing and does a good job getting attention to its products.

One of the reasons why Apple's marketing is so effective is because it's products usually back up the message they are selling.

"Easiest computer to use." Well, that's true.
"Innovative and cutting edge." Well, that's true too. (You can now get a George Foreman Grill that looks like the Blueberry iMac)
"Think Different." Well, the iMac was totally different than anything I saw before.

I have no problem with a company that markets itself as long as what they are saying is true.

Actually, if you've read much of Leander's (the author of the article) writing, or heard him speak, it's not very surprising to see him working from the premise that all mac users will buy anything with an Apple logo on it. He will, and that's the sort of mac users he talks to the most. Those of us who aren't quite as fanatical seldom speak up around that crowd.

As a recent "switcher" (I've not had time to become a wacky zealot yet), I can say that all the brand did was make me look into buying a Mac - it was the actual products, and the obvious ease of use and quality, that hooked me. I've had my PowerBook and iPod for about 3 months now and they're great. I looked at lots of other options before I put down my cash and did lots of reasearch and let me tell you - the brand really had nothing to do with my decision. If Sony or Dell had made these machines I'da went with them. No doubt.

I still have my Dell though I never use it. I'd plug my PowerBook in at work if the IT department here would let me. It's simply an easier to use machine - does everything I need it to without some of the problems. And the iPod - goddamn - I love that thing....I can't think of a better mp3 player.

Sure, they have a great brand, but as one who oh, six months ago, would have never thought about "switching", it's the quality behind the brand that really counts.

sometimes that doesn't even happen. they get it, bring it home, slap it into a glass case, lock it, throw away the key, and drool open mouthed in front of it for countless hours. people don't have to use it to own it. it doesn't end.

Ah, Apple. The brand all my PC-loving friends love to hate and I... well, like. I switched about six years ago due in great part to a disastrous experience with a no-name PC Clone (my first computer) so when I decided not to waste my money on another PC and buy a G3 instead, the rest became history. In six years went to tech support only once (and that was to fix a bad piece of RAM). Now I have a new iMac and the story continues... but because of me being brainwashed with Apple's seductive marketing? Not really. I like the Mac because it's fun to use, fills my needs, and is solid as a rock in terms of hardware - I wouldn't otherwise waste my money on something that doesn't give me as much value for it.

Well, I don't know about brand, but I recently switched so I think my opinion carries some weight in this debate. I have a house full of PC's and use one at work, but when it came time to buy a computer for my personal use, I chose an iMac. I was attracted to the form factor and sold on the operating system. OS X is the best personal computing experience I've had, and I've had them all. Sure, the commercials caught my attention and the Apple website does a great job of putting their products in the best light, and Apple owners are great evangelists, but the bottom line is that it is all backed up with a fine product that really works, and stays out of my face while doing it. If it said Dell or Compaq on the front and did the same thing, I'd have considered it too.

Wait, I'm intrigued... I use WIN2K at work. I like to Multitask. WIN2K lets me multi-task through multiple applications pretty well. (Apps like Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver MX etc)

Now I've used OS 9 on my girlfriends iMac... it's cool, and I'm thinking about getting one myself.. but only if I can multitask like normal.

So.. in a nutshell.. what is OSX like at multitasking... I've played around with a new G4 power mac (twin 800Mhz) and it seemed ok.. but I wasn't REALLY working it, you know? Tell me, please.

The main goal behind OSX was to finally move to a "modern" operating system because OS9 is just horrible with multitasking.

Thanks to the Unix underpinnings, OSX multitasks just as well as any other Unix. Combine that with the UI, and you get cool stuff like this: a priority control bar for your apps.

If OSX hadn't finally brought excellent multitasking to the Mac, I'm not sure I could have stayed with Apple.

Multitasking, imo, is probably the most overlooked, underappreciated feature of OSX. I can boot back into 9, and enjoy the brisk, responsive Finder, but within no time I'm slamming up against an app or process blocking me from doing anything else until it finishes. X's Finder (right now) is slower, for sure, but the fact that you can write emails and surf the web while applying a gaussian blur to a huge 400dpi image makes it all worthwhile.

Sold!