In the computer industry, perceptions tend to be more important than realities. Why else would PC makers constantly announce for sale products that not only do not yet exist, but in fact rely on processors that neither Intel or AMD have yet in fact put into production? It is also a fact that part of the way computer makers compete is to plant carefully crafted misinformation, commonly called F.U.D. (from a Microsoft internal company term for their marketing tactics of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt), in the public consciousness. The simple fact that Apple does not dominate the computer industry by sheer mass as Microsoft and Intel do is a fine example of how the Wintel Hegemony has been quite successful in using F.U.D. and how poorly Apple has countered it over the past twenty years.
In the beginning of the personal computer, Apple was the first to successfully market a nearly complete computer. This first "complete" computer, the Apple ][, had a motherboard, power supply, keyboard, case, a simple BASIC built into the system, audio cassette data storage capability and operating system all ready to go out of the box. All you needed to do was attach it to a television via a $25 signal converter and voila! you were in the computing business. Of course this first ready to use personal computer was a bit lacking because at first there was really very little you could do with it unless you could make your own programs. Soon books came out and simple BASIC programs became available. However, until VisiCalc appeared, the Apple ][ was still only a hobbyist's gadget.
Apple still had a serious perception problem. They were still making a "toy" computer according to the IT people in business and the top execs, who were deathly afraid of anything with a keyboard. After all, weren't they the computer "experts"? It also didn't help that every one of Apple's immediate competitors were saying the same thing, especially the C/PM computer makers.
Apple's perception problem did not get any better when IBM introduced their own personal computer. After all, the IBM PC had to be a real computer because a real computer maker made it instead of some garage startup that made something that looked like a typewriter and named it for a piece of fruit. IBM on the other hand had both the Big Name reputation and wisely avoided making their new IBM PC resemble a typewriter. Remember, the executives in Business were still skittish of anything that looked like a secretary would use it. They might get their hands contaminated with menial office workers' cooties, or something like that.
Apple's response at first was the Apple III which had all of the resounding success of a solid lead balloon. Then they tried marvelous Lisa which had a price tag that induced a case of instant fatal sticker shock at distance of 30 paces. After that the rather mild little Macintosh appeared and Apple found it's future.
The problem Apple had by now was a simple one. The average user who actually tried a Mac loved the Mac, but Business executives refused to look. After all, wasn't Apple that company that made a fruity toy computer? They decided to ignore it and stay with the IBM PC despite it's obtuse interface that only their IT personnel could love.
By now Microsoft had gotten it's mitts on QDOS and quickly rechristened it MS/DOS and ran with it. Since it did not run on any Apple computer, they threw their "loyalty" (such as it was...) to the rising star of the Intel based IBM PC. Of course, Microsoft wasn't so stupid as to really think the Mac was a bad idea, despite their marketing efforts during this period to convince the public otherwise. Remember F.U.D.? The idea was to hold Apple off long enough to copy the interface, tack it onto MS/DOS and trick to unwary PC user into thinking it was "good enough". The ploy worked, and Apple still had the common perception problem that they made "toy" computers. Fortunately, they found a good market with publishing and graphics types who didn't give a hoot about what business types thought. They had work to get done and for this the PC was pretty useless. The Mac, on the other hand, proved to be ideal.
Now Apple had a problem with a schizophrenic public perception. The Wintel types by now would grudgingly admit that the PC wasn't really a great graphics machine, but they still held firmly to the erroneous perception that the Mac couldn't cut the mustard as a business machine.
As time went on, more perception problems emerged, carefully nurtured by the Wintel F.U.D. machine. After all, if the public in general ever got wise to the realities, the Wintel Hegemony would be dead meat. One such manufactured myth was that of the "slow" Mac. Despite the fact, according to independent testers, that a Mac could perform about as fast as the current PCs of their times, the PC industry went to great lengths to foster a common misperception that Macs were "slow".
Over time a hard core group of Mac haters developed, commonly called "PC Weenies." If anyone really wants an example of how far they will go to tell out and out lies about Apple, go to IHateApple.com. On second thought, DON'T go there. They would only benefit from the hits.
One myth about the Mac that the PC Weenies often loudly trumpet is that Macs are expensive, far more expensive that "cheap" PCs. In the beginning and for several years thereafter this was more than true and Apple is guilty of creating this perception all by themselves. However, over the past four or five years the price parity has improved and now, although PC Weenies won't admit it, a current Mac generally costs about the same or even less than comparably equipped PCs. In fact, MacMonkey has posted a series of articles comparing current Macs with current PCs and with the single exception of the 400 MHz G4 PowerMac, every model they compared (after adding missing features to the PCs that come as standard in the Mac) was actually less costly that their PC counterparts.
In short, Apple suffers from a serious problem with common misperceptions, many that go back many years. However, that may be about to change.
Enter Mac OS X.
Mac OS X has grabbed the attention of both the Geek side of computing and the Common Herd. Although many in the hard core Macintosh community have misgivings about the interface changes, loss of favorite functions and some clearly clunky ideas emanating from His Jobness and his claque of NeXT engineers, Mac OS X and Aqua (Mac OS X' controversial new interface) have features and capabilities that are clearly far superior to anything on any other desktop platform.
I was very surprised to see how the UNIX community has been receiving Mac OS X. I actually should not have been surprised considering that Mac OS X is essentially a variant of BSD UNIX but with a truly functional interface that any normal human being can use. All you have to do is go over to Slash-Dot's forums some time to see how excited some of them are over it. The common view seems to be that Mac OS X will finally bring UNIX to the common man.
I also found a series of articles in the mainstream press that waxes enthusiastically over Mac OS X, such as Business Week. When an operating system for hardware that is not a mainstay of the Business world gets a review like this then something must be brewing.
Microsoft also released its new Windows Millennium Edition at almost the same time that Mac OS X Beta was released. Microsoft was surprisingly quiet about it's new release and this might seem puzzling until we read the reviews it has received so far. Mostly what I hear from the media about Windows ME is the sound of one hand clapping. Read Stephanie Miles' article Windows Me: Windows 98 all over again? at CNET News.com to get the feeling of disinterest. Or read David Coursey's article at ZDNet, Windows ME isn't MS' shining hour, to get the feeling of a certain irritation at Microsoft's latest and apparently not so greatest OS incarnation.
In fact, here is a clipping of the first two paragraphs from Mr. Coursey's article:
