QOTD: What Would You Suggest Apple Do?

One thing Apple could do is make their amazing OS available for use on PC's, it would give us something to use otehr then Microsoft or opensource Linux products. With this they would open up a whole new sector of sales. Sure this may have a small impact on their system sales, but people who are Apple product lovers will still by their products and people who like the software but not the hardware could build their own.

^^^what he said, plus lower the ridiculous prices... and perhaps release hardware technologically on the level with the market...

Lower their prices..they appear to be doing what Commodore did with the Amiga and whatever the reason, they're up against a market that is flooded with cheap, fast hardware as well as cheaper operating systems with close to or the same level of flexibility. Mac's look nice but I'm not a slave to fashion.

The gaming scene is getting larger EVERY year, I believe it has already surpassed the income from films. Why is apple avoiding this area? they have the contacts with the card vendors.

Allow me the freedom to use their products my way rather than theirs. Let me copy a folder containing MP3s onto my iphone and then be able to just play them, like 80% of the other products on the market can.

They should admit they're just selling overpriced PCs. The technology is identical, the only thing making it a "Mac" is the shiny case.

Stop building overpriced systems based on old technology. I like my iphone, but hardware wise it's 3 years old. If they built one based on the latest technology it would be an amazing product, but as it's apple they'd probably charge $1000 for it.

Use a two-button mouse, FFS it's 2009.

I think Apple should do 'the right thing' - stop nursing the ego's of the super gullable with its OSX. And start providing 'Apple' computer hardware with the only OS options being Windows and Linux.

Lose the bespoke OS, go mainstream and maybe expand their userbase. Until poeple realise their hardware is double the price of the competition, for 'contoured plastic and metal'!

Apple suck! And most Apple users have their head up Steve Job's A55

If you can afford £1,500 on a mac, but you take the money and spend it on building a PC, you end up with a system 4 times faster.

Doesn't bother me what apple do - I'll not be getting one. I know how to use a computer and XP does me fine. My mates got a topend mac and loves it. He showed me the price, for the amount of money it had better be better than windows!

TBH I suggest Apple bite my shiny metal ass.

They need to make OSX actually secure. Start using recent hardware and competitive prices, and stop locking everything down to the point that it's unusable.

Apple constantly complain about Microsofts business practices, but Apple are far far worse in abusing users.

1. Apple should never license OS X it is what makes Apple computer special. If Dell was making a cheaper Mac why would you buy one from Apple?

2. There is no "Apple Tax" their computer cost more simply because they yes higher quality construction not necessarily components. Look that the Dell Adamo for instance uses similar construction to the Macbook Air and what happened? Offers lower performing Intel CPUs and GPUs with a cheap plastic monitor and is more expensive! Nobody is talking about the "Adamo tax".

3. Apple does not sell computers to the computer enthusiasts. They sell computer to people who want the complete system. Not everybody wants or knows how to upgrade a GPU or HDD. Not everybody wants a $500 GPU. And those that do want Windows to play games and there a plenty options out there for them.

4. But more importantly Apple is doing just fine. They dont need "help" or advice to weather the storm. Record Quarter after Record quarter says alot about how well Apple knows their market.

@jimjim3425345:

Oh come of it, by that logic Linux should stop nursing the egos of the super nerdy and just allow Windows to exist as it's already in place. The reason Apple aren't mainstream is because they don't want to be - they are an exclusive supplier to a fashion-conscious market. Lose the "bespoke OS"? You might as well tell Intel to stop building their custom Linux distro for 2 second boot times. You might as well tell Always Innovating to kill theirs and put Windows on their touchbook.

Or are you actually advocating a stagnant world in which Windows is the only OS?

Apple IS OSX and ending it would kill a large chunk of their brand identity. OSX is a very nice operating system and I personally would probably run it as my primary in a dual-boot if I could legally install it on my choice of computer components.

Personally, I'd evolve Apple into a boutique supplier focusing on two markets: fashionistas with a trendy digital lifestyle and digital creatives. Since adopting Intel hardware, there is nothing really to differentiate Apple's hardware from traditional PC hardware and as a result it's so hard to justify the costs and perpetuate the "Macs are better for creatives" that was genuinely the case with the PowerPC processors.

As a boutique supplier though, Apple would have to raise their hardware levels to offer bleeding-edge stuff. The MacBooks are fine as they are, but the iMacs need to have the higher-end mobile GPUs in them and top-end Quadros in the Mac Pros. OSX comes as standard because Mac will still be a tightly controlled platform, but you also have the option to dual boot with a business/ultimate flavour of Vista/7.

Upgrades need to be more sensibly priced, particularly when it comes to RAM, and offer (where possible) an upgrade path for the iMacs - the bits inside will become obsolete LONG before the screen does. I don't think more control over the platform would be a good thing as it's not something a boutique supplier would do - they offer the best of the best by using a small, specialised product range and expertly put together. Alienware does it, Falcon Northwest does it, Apple do it.

But, if the hardware inside a Mac was on par with other boutique suppliers we'd no longer have an issue with the price, because they are then in line with other specialists. You pay a fortune for the Envy 133's carbon fibre body, you pay a fortune for the exclusivity of an Alienware or Falcon Northwest but nobody complains because, for the most part, you get hardware to match the price tag. Apple need to do the same.

I have no problem paying for style and exclusivity, but I don't want style over substance. I have no problem paying out £850,000+ for a Bugatti Veyron with custom paint jobs, interiors and toys because I know the heart of the machine is a monster and that's what most of my money is going towards. I refuse to spend £100,000 on making a Ford Mondeo look like a Veyron just because I like the look of it.

Macs SHOULD be the former, Macs ARE the latter, and ultimately that's the big thing I'd change.

Games. Not a console, but turn the Mac into a decent games platform. For home computing the only reason I have a Windows pc is for games and I cannot be bothered dual booting and all that nonsense just because one application only runs one one OS, etc, etc.

If Apple execs think I'm talking rubbish 'cos there are games available for the mac', walk out of your shiney shop on Regent Street and round the corner into Game on Oxford street and count the number of Mac titles. I can tell you the exact number they have. 0. And this is the same for all major retail outlets. Okay, so the amount of shelf space for PC games is reducing too because we buy our games online now, but the same cannot be said for Mac.

@ LePhuronn

"I have no problem paying for style and exclusivity, but I don't want style over substance. I have no problem paying out £850,000+ for a Bugatti Veyron with custom paint jobs, interiors and toys because I know the heart of the machine is a monster and that's what most of my money is going towards. I refuse to spend £100,000 on making a Ford Mondeo look like a Veyron just because I like the look of it.

Macs SHOULD be the former, Macs ARE the latter, and ultimately that's the big thing I'd change."

It may be true to say about their consumer line of computers dont perform as well as they should. But the Mac Pro has come in cheaper and better performing that comparable Dell work stations.

Modern hardware at reasonable prices!

@shaunp:

Show Apple execs one person who bought a Mac and wants to play games and they might change their mind.

If you want to play games, get a console or a PC - that's the established market.

@the Innocent:

"But the Mac Pro has come in cheaper and better performing that comparable Dell work stations"

That's possibly more testament to how shit Dell are!

Look almost everyone here's saying the same thing only if "APPLE" will listen.
I must admit that they have great ideas ad great innovation but their problems are to mention a few
1. Pricing
2. Licensing issues,
3. Flexibilities,
4. Choice (what consumers want and not what APPLE wants),
5. Freedom to do what i want with my apple product

Look, this is only the beginning for them while Windows is getting more exiting, cheap and flexible. Those with Mac in feature will turn around for the cheapest. Everyone is trying to minimize cost in spending these days and wouldn't buy some expensive flashy product when you could simply get a cheaper and universal one.

Listen to the masses Apple, listen and learn before you dig your grave and fall into it.

LePhuronn

That's the whole point. People who do play games don't buy a Mac because it doesn't play them. I for one would buy a Mac if it did play games as I prefer OS X to Windows. And for the record console games are not a patch on PC games - the PC is a much more indepth gaming experience with graphcis quality that far exceeds that of a HD TV.

From my (extremely limited) knowledge of the economics surrounding the whole computer industry I understand that there's more money to be made in selling software than hardware. This is why I can't understand why Apples won't release OSX as a standalone product. I think they'd make a fortune. I must be wrong though if Apple's employees in business and marketing areas don't agree with me.

@bujox:

Do Macs not game because their users don't want them to, or do Mac users not game because their hardware can't? I would argue the former to be honest.

The Mac for creativity has been around longer than the PC for gaming. Historically, Macs were always targeted at creatives and the media industries - they were professional systems for professional services.

It wasn't until the first iMac came out were Apple starting to work on the consumer market, starting the trend towards this digital lifestyle. At this point most people interested in a Mac are still creative types and PC gaming was only really starting to hit its stride with games like Half Life and Baldur's Gate - do Apple invest in integrating the budding gaming phenomenon into their systems or improve upon their existing client base and focus on the everyday stuff life surfing, e-mail and photos?

They obviously went with the latter and I would've done the same as gamers were simply not in Apple's target demographic. Also bear in mind that we're at the grey area between PC and console for gaming - up until this point all hardcore gaming was done on consoles.

And this cycle continues - with every new Mac comes improvements in its creative abilities because users are sticking with consoles or PCs for games. If there's no market, why cater?

It's only been recently has the discussion of Mac gaming come up and that's only been a supplemental point to the bigger issue of lacklustre GPUs on the Mac.

The way the Mac has grown it seems pretty clear in my opinion that gaming has just not been a priority for Apple because their user base and target markets don't game - they're either creative professionals, fashionistas or those who enjoy the "digital lifestyle", and where there is any gaming cross-over (like me) will always stick with PCs because we have more flexibility inside the case.

@bujox:

Oh and I'd beg to differ that console gaming isn't a patch on PC gaming. It costs an awful lot of money to build a PC gaming setup that will better a console setup. Yes, the PCs are more capable in terms of numbers than a console, but the resulting experience has a long way to go.

A personal example: I've played GTA 4 on both my PC and my PS3. What was the more engaging experience? The PS3 for simple reason it was running 1080p off my 50" plasma. You just don't get PC monitors that size in the normal world and as a result I don't care if you can throw around full AA at 2560x1600 because it's "higher than HD" - you're doing it on a 30" screen which is no way as immersive as a 50".

Now I refuse to play FPS games on anything other than a PC because of mouse input and I've lost many days at a time engrossed in one of them, but I have yet to play anything on a PC that knocked my eyes out as 1080p LittleBigPlanet on a 50" screen - it looked almost tangible and you can see every detail of the different material types. OK, full spec Crysis does make your retinas bleed with joy, but I still didn't want to reach out and touch the leaves or the sand or the water.

OSX only has to support the hardware that Apple chooses to use. Opening up OSX to PC's in general would be a huge pain for Apple. Windows barely manages to support the hundreds of thousands varieties in hardware configurations (which I think is why it is perceived to be less 'reliable'), frankly I don't think Apple could manage it.

Apple cannot use the Direct X technology used in PC gaming (it's a Microsoft technology) so I don't think the Mac will ever be a serious gaming platform.

You can have PC gaming on 50" plasmas by the way... you just have to hook your computer up to the screen (the screens normally have a PC input, plus a lot of graphics cards now come with HDMI output and you can get HDMI adapters for those that don't).

@longerlife:

Granted, most graphics cards now have HDMI outputs so you can rig up your 50" plasmas now. That does mean you're running at HD resolutions though, not "far beyond the resolutions of an HD TV" that bujox stated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking PC gaming at all, but if you take all the costs and the practicalities into consideration it costs a shed load more to get the same gaming experience from a PC than it does a console. That being said, each platform really caters for different gaming genres so it's not really an issue.

I think I might go plug the PC into the 50" tonight and have the PC and PS3 versions of GTA 4 running side by side and have a lil comparison.

Fair enough a hign end gaming PC costs a lot to build, but you can build a decent gaming machine for only slightly more than the cost of a PS3 and you get a whole lot more functionality thrown in with it.

I understand and agree with the arguement that Apple cater for the creative/professional market, however that's not the way they are marketing themselves anymore.
Apple are all about doing a few limited things very well. This is one of the reasons they don't use top of the line equipment, they fully test their drivers with older, well know devices, so they KNOW that they will work perfectly.
Unfortunately as they opperate on a fairly small scale they still have to charge premium prices for substandard equipment.
The other arguement is that they are easy to set up and use, but personally I have never had a problem using Windows, and neither has my mum, dad, gran etc. Windows has a fine set up out of the box, and (this is where Apple falls down) it is possible to tweak the set up if you know how.
One thing I would like to see Windows do more out of the box, is seperate the Administrator/User relationship. Default Windows installs give too much power to the normal user. Dell et al really need to refine their install processes and provide Windows experiences which are much closer to the OS-X experience. Windows is capable of it but is rarely configured to do so.
Lastly people need to get past the misnomer than OS-X is more secure than Vista, which is simply not true.
If I were to build a Mac equivalent PC for a family memeber I could produce something far superior than a Mac (and better looking), for half the price.

I think Apple should make their computers upgradeable. Simply make the software block all non-Apple hardware and start selling off Apple hardware upgrades. This wouldn't affect reliability because all Apple hardware would be pre-tested for compatibility, and if it doesn't work, don't air it. Besides that, I think they're really doing good as I personally would much rather buy a Mac than a PC if I had the money for one.

I love gaming on my MBP using Vista on Bootcamp. Sure it's only got an 8600M GT but most recent games are very playable on it (CPU and RAM specs are top notch, even by today's standards).

The importance of the Mac for someone like me who used to game a lot (and build my own PCs) but now has a young family is that it provides a nice balance between the things that OSX does very well indeed (like iLife, Aperture and Logic) and the things that I like Windows for (gaming). I know that I could build a capable gaming PC for a few hundred quid and that the MBP is £1500 but (and its a big "but") I value the flexibility and the pain-free ownership experience and I'm not after the latest and greatest games (which as any serious gamer knows, is just a money pit, what with the 12-18 month GPU upgrade cycle).

Start making more inroads into GPGPU or cell processing. That would still I believe, produce some 'killer apps' since the PC side is still in it's early stages and a bit buggy. Set the bar at mid-class AMD and nVIdia cards, not just one manufacturer.

JAVA ON THE IPHONE PLEAZE!!!

Open standards.
Seperate the hardware from software - at least to some extent.
Stop being the "stylish nerd", it's just not right.

Lower the prices; if a mac was 1/3 as much they'd sell 4x as many etc. Market share and customer loyalty in the future is more important than a larger profit now. As a bonus, customers won't feel ripped off.

Most of all: STOP BEING SO GODDAMN PRETENTIOUS.