One thing I find hard to beat when it comes to Apple: the image.
Apple is the hip and cool thing that your artistic cousin uses, whereas Microsoft is the lame and boring thing that the enterprise uses.
Between these two stereotypes, what would be the image you would market to in order to turn huge profits like Apple is doing? I have no idea, and I think it would be unwise to just imitate Apple, they have more experience being Apple than anybody.
The full lyrics diss-out the iPhone because to them it's all about Blackberry - you wanna tell them they're wrong? ;)
I think as technologists we can pontificate that Apple (usually) imperically has the best hardware and software, but that's not how image and culture decide what is best.
You have no idea how many artists use shitty Windows XP laptops. As a computer guy in my school, I had to root out a ton of viruses and other crap. Even my painting professor, a renown watercolor and oil painter, had a 9 year old Taiwanese micro laptop that chugged on IrfanView. Minus the rich kids, designers and myself, I knew only about 10 other students with a Mac in the art department.
Windows is cheap, which is good for an artist. Cultural cache can only go so far when one's judged on their work.
Image is not so much about who you are, but about how you would like to appear.
It'd be pretty funny if Apple's success rested merely on people's desire to be perceived as creative and aesthetically discerning rather than on people who are creative and aesthetically discerning finding it to be the better product.
I don't think that's accurate, but it does probably make up some measurable amount of their sales.
I think this is changing as art/design schools are starting to require laptops to be in the program, usually strongly 'recommending' mac laptops. Students are using their student loan money to buy them now.
At least this is what was happening at my alma mater as I was graduating.
It will be interesting to see if this trend reverses. Of course we've all seen the photos of students sitting in classes and only one guy has a Windows laptop and everyone else has a Mac...
... but that was back when Vista was at its prime level of stinkiness. General feedback on Windows 7 (even if it is just a glorified Vista service-pack as some claim) is that it is a lot better.
I've had a couple of opportunities this year to use Windows 7 desktops set up by different organizations. And I noticed an improvement over Vista. I wouldn't say it was completely pain free, but it is comparatively closer to an OS X level of experience than Windows XP was back in the day (whereas Vista was a decrease in that regard).
The question is, would you pay 70% of the price (keeping in mind student discounts on Macs) to get 75 or 80% of the quality? To a lot of people that will seem like an acceptable trade-off, and so we might see a resurgence in Windows laptops on the campus.
Agreed, though this is going to vary by country and region.
The parent displays the standard classic misunderstanding of Apple. The vast majority of people who buy Apple products don't buy Apple because they "want to be hip" or for reasons of image. Most of us left that kind of juvenile peer pressure behind in high school.
The problem is the pundits are simply unable to look beyond the surface details. It would kill them to admit that there are actual reasons to use Apple that go beyond the superficial "skin deep" shininess. But because the pundits bang that drum so often and so loudly (any that don't are dismissed out of hand as "cool-aid drinking fanboys"), other people (e.g. the parent poster) think it must be true. That (for instance) OS X is "just the same as Windows only prettier".
It almost becomes a grunge aesthetic. They reason that the non-Apple and Apple products are functionally the same (or turing equivalent, or use the same hardware (intel chips, A5) as their competitors), so that the only difference is prettiness and price tag, and on that basis they reject Apple. They're trying to show how manly they are by not being swayed by 'base emotions' and superficiality.
Personally, I think the burden of proof should be on the other side. Given that Microsoft has spent the last 15-20 years dishing out shit-soup and their marketing mostly consists of "stick with us because the next bowl won't be so bad", how in blue blazes are they still so popular?
The burden of proof shouldn't be on the Mac-heads to prove that they're not superficial and shallow, the burden of proof should be on anyone that supports the Windows eco-system to prove that they're not clinically insane! ;-)
People who aspire to an image of an artist might use Apple. Actual artists don't usually have enough money for new computers, much less new Apple machines.
Think about that for a minute. They made a really good operating system which I would use if I could. However not many could afford it. Usually its... buy 2x computers, or one Apple. Thus only the few "elites" have it (or those willing to sacrifice to get it)
Which is an absolutely perfect way to go for a luxury company, just think Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolex,Breitling etc. here. Apple never really compromised on price and image and they try very hard to keep a great overall product quality, if you ask me.
Apple is the hip and cool thing that your artistic cousin uses, whereas Microsoft is the lame and boring thing that the enterprise uses.
Between these two stereotypes, what would be the image you would market to in order to turn huge profits like Apple is doing? I have no idea, and I think it would be unwise to just imitate Apple, they have more experience being Apple than anybody.