I think many people have questioned some of the decisions that Apple has made over the years regarding their OS and hardware decisions - more regarding their closed licensing than anything. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball has a great piece entitled The Art of the Parlay, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Platform Licensing and Market Share. Part of the discussion deals with the argument that Apple - due to its superior interface - is really the one who deserves the monopoly that Microsoft enjoys. (I would argue that in many ways, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.) To quote:
This idea has been repeated so often by so many sources that today, most people, even Mac users, simply take it at face value: If only Apple had licensed the Macintosh, they could have been Microsoft.
But this is not a fact. It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven. But even if you could go back to 1984 and show Apple’s then-executives a glimpse of the future and the Mac’s eventual market share — merely “licensing” the Mac very likely would not have made a difference. In fact, in an alternate universe where Apple had licensed the Macintosh or Mac OS in the mid-80s, things could have ended up worse for Apple, as in bankrupt-and-out-of-business worse.
What I find so ridiculous about the discussion of why it is so bad that Apple has such a small market share is that, what the hell does it matter? I believe in my Apple products, not because they are used by everyone, but because they work so well for me. Considering how seriously Americans (and many other cultures) take individualism, it is amazing to see how much the same people who espouse such values want everyone to use the same things - use the same tools. If it weren't for people understanding how seriously I take technology and how much I use it in every minute of my life, they would laugh to know how many Macs I own and how dependent I have become on their stability and usability. The laughter is only held back because many people think twice, "man... if he's using a Mac... I just don't get it." For someone like my father, who is not technically yet inclined, they would just shrug, "newbie." In regards to me, the question is often genuine as to why. There are many things that make Apple's small market share positive - the greatest of which (being an ISP manager) - is no need to worry much about viruses. More important to any of this, however, is that their products simply fit my lifestyle better. Many argue that Macs are too expensive and I simply argue, "use one and see whether or not it is worth it." You may, indeed, decide that it isn't, but a vast majority of people who have tried per my suggestion (or that of another Mac user) have found it an enjoyable adventure.
John's discussion is much more aimed at why Apple doesn't have the sheer momentum and sized market that Microsoft enjoys. It is enlightening to see someone argue the points he makes logically instead of emotionally. Great article, John.
