[BarracksSi]

This has been getting to me lately...

People who don't own, or don't like, the Macintosh platform usually make some derisive comment about how pretty the computers are.

You know what I mean -- "Oh, look at how cute that Apple is..."

I'm pretty sure that most Mac users, especially repeat owners, stick with the platform not because of how it looks but because of how the OS runs.

That being said...

Would a Mac be as much of a draw if it looked just like any other computer? Would "serious" computer users take a Mac more "seriously" if it didn't look so trendy?

[Franz Josef]

My PowerBook is just like my wife. Beautiful to look at and even better to spend time with.

[InactionMan]

I don't own a cat, but I voted for that one anyway.

And it's all about the software, mostly. I use a Mac at home because Windows is so bloody awful, not because it looks so baaaaaaad ass. It's badassness is just a bonus.

[Robo]

I'd buy a Mac even if their hardware design wasn't so excellent, but their style certainly makes it easier to justify spending more.

[Mac+]

I'm currently writing up an essay on aesthetics and usability. It has been demonstrated that the perception of good design can influence the perceived usability of a product/interactive system. Furthermore, the contention still holds *after* the use of said system!

To answer your question though, I'm struggling to separate the OS from the hardware. Ten years ago, I would not have had a problem with spearating the two. But I think Jobs knows, as does Ives, that beauty counts for something. Apple knows UCD. Thus I think OS X and the industrial design of the Jobs 2.0 era are inextricably linked.

Conclusion: If I can't have both - I'd probably stick to what I'm currently using ... until something that fulfilled my desire for beauty *and* usability came along. *

Buy once - buy well.

* If this means swapping platforms or stagnating - so be it ... but going by Apple's recent Industrial Design and OS X releases, I think this will be highly unlikely.

[Mac+]

One more thing - here's a good book on the topic:

(click on the image to go to Donald Norman's site)

[kretara]

I'd buy a Mac even if it was in a beige box. Heck, I might even buy with with a Intel chip inside.

But, I do believe that sometimes style gets in the way of function. I believe that the current PowerMac and Mini are prime examples.

PowerMac: Huge case, only 2 HD spaces (compare 4-5 in old PM) and only 1 optical drive (compare 2 in old PM). IMHO, very limited for a "professional" workstation. I have one and definately want/need more upgradeability

Mini: talk about form over function.

[DMBand0026]

I'd still buy them, but I don't think I'd be as enthusiastic about them. I really like the idea that my computer not only looks good on the inside, functions extremely well, is fast, but it also looks good. It shows me that Apple puts more time, more thought, and more care into their products than anyone else. If they spend this much time and this much effort on making it look this way, just think of how high quality the final product must be. If they think about the littlest things, just think of how great the big things must be. It's all about attention to detail.

I like the way they look, but it's not the only reason I buy them, however, it is one of them.

[Kickaha]

'Serious' computer users don't make inane comments like 'look at how cute...', they know that tool selection is based on how well that tool works. The fact that good design for functionality so often leads to good design for form isn't lost on them.

"Not every elegant design is good - but it's interesting how often a good design is elegant." - Fred Brooks

If I see something that feels 'right', that is elegant, and obviously streamlined for a specific task, I have much more faith that it was well designed to do that task well, before I even attempt to use it. And most of the time, that faith is spot on.

Apple has the minimalist design ethos down pat, and it isn't about the white and silver, it isn't about the clean lines of the case, it's the fact that that same sense of 'this tool is well crafted' extends from the core of the OS out to the skin of the machine. The external design gives you a hint of what the OS will be like. Simply put, if you don't have the innate sense of design that makes the external design appealing, you probably won't grok why the entire system is so nice, you'll just be fighting it every step of the way. Some people simply don't have that sense, but most do... particularly the software engineers worth their salt. There's a reason the Macs are starting to gain quite a following among the ubergeeks. They get design, the principles of which are the same regardless of whether you are designing software or a monitor case, and are starting to realize that the elegance is *not* just skin deep, but a permeating trait of the entire system, firmly entrenched in the parts they are most concerned with.

Those 'serious' users making comments about the 'cuteness' aren't engineers I'd care to work with professionally, to be honest. They lack objectivity, desire for new information, or that sense of design that is critical to being a top notch software architect. Essentially, they're second-tier. Which is fine, the world needs second-tier, but posing as experts is annoying.

So yes, I'd still buy a Mac if they didn't have the case style, because I know the OS offers what I want at a fundamental level... but I'd have to consider long-term directions the company was going, and what effects it would have on the OS design.

[709]

Well, my 8500 and original G3 weren't exactly sex bombs, but I'd be lying if I didn't say a little blood flows downward when thinking about buying new Apple hardware.

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by 709 Well, my 8500 and original G3 weren't exactly sex bombs, but I'd be lying if I didn't say a little blood flows downward when thinking about buying new Apple hardware.

That's gold. Truer words have never been spoken, and I think you just summed up Apple for pretty much everyone who really understands the whole experience.

Good stuff.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by Kickaha If I see something that feels 'right', that is elegant, and obviously streamlined for a specific task, I have much more faith that it was well designed to do that task well, before I even attempt to use it. And most of the time, that faith is spot on.

This is consistent with the research from Kurosa & Kashimura (1995), as well as Tractinsky (1997) ... for starters.

Originally Posted by well hung brain Apple has the minimalist design ethos down pat, and it isn't about the white and silver, it isn't about the clean lines of the case, it's the fact that that same sense of 'this tool is well crafted' extends from the core of the OS out to the skin of the machine. The external design gives you a hint of what the OS will be like. Simply put, if you don't have the innate sense of design that makes the external design appealing, you probably won't grok why the entire system is so nice, you'll just be fighting it every step of the way. Some people simply don't have that sense, but most do... particularly the software engineers worth their salt. There's a reason the Macs are starting to gain quite a following among the ubergeeks. They get design, the principles of which are the same regardless of whether you are designing software or a monitor case, and are starting to realize that the elegance is *not* just skin deep, but a permeating trait of the entire system, firmly entrenched in the parts they are most concerned with.

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts into words ... some of those phrases are "quote-worthy".

OMG - I quoted you in the reply ... the irony.

Originally Posted by same dude So yes, I'd still buy a Mac if they didn't have the case style, because I know the OS offers what I want at a fundamental level... but I'd have to consider long-term directions the company was going, and what effects it would have on the OS design.

Hmmm - aesthetics as an indicator of usability *and* future direction. Interesting.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mac+ This is consistent with the research from Kurosa & Kashimura (1995), as well as Tractinsky (1997) ... for starters.

Ooooh, I'd love to find out more along these lines.

Because...

Hmmm - aesthetics as an indicator of usability *and* future direction. Interesting.

... I have a strong idea of where the next generation of programming languages will end up, based on current design principles in OO. The current 'aesthetics', the things that have been distilled out of a myriad of design attempts, are precisely the principles that have been found most useful by the community as a whole. Those most useful details are those that are the most likely to be successfully integrated into the tools that support software production, from language design on up. We've already seen indicators of this in C++ 0x and C#. I'd like to provide a map to the next generation of language designers... and I think I have it. I would like some corroborating argument from other sources to bolster my assertion however.

[BenRoethig]

Yes. In my mind, the Mac is made up of two components: Apple's hardware consisting of top class notebooks and stylish, but not always practical desktops, and a very practical and stable operating system. Apple's hardware is defined by being something different from the mainstream. However, I don't think think those with more conventional tastes (like myself) should be shut out. The million dollar question is how to do this without diluting Apple's image and/or taking away sales. I see four options: a) start with limited licenses to high end PC makers with quality and pricing comparable to Apple, b) Apple starts a second brand with a separate identity to build quality tower PCs but keep everything in house, c) offer a retail motherboard for those who want to build their own mac, d) a combination of either A&C and B&C.

[Mac+]

Kick - my reading is not based on software langauges - but I can post you some links to aesthetics and usability if you think it will help.

Those most useful details are those that are the most likely to be successfully integrated into the tools that support software production, from language design on up.

sounds like natural selection - survival of the fittest.

Bear in mind, that comment about aesthetics and future directions was speculation on my part - I have not come across reading for this currently ... and given that I'm typing away at my last essay now, I'm not inclined to search for any hooks into that topic presently. However, I'll send you the other links via PM.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mac+ Kick - my reading is not based on software langauges - but I can post you some links to aesthetics and usability if you think it will help.

Thanks - IMO design is design is design, and the same principles apply across the board. My research has supported this so far, and I'd like to find more evidence from a wider range of sources.

sounds like natural selection - survival of the fittest. Bear in mind, that comment about aesthetics and future directions was speculation on my part - I have not come across reading for this currently ... and given that I'm typing away at my last essay now, I'm not inclined to search for any hooks into that topic presently. However, I'll send you the other links via PM.

Thanks!

[shatteringglass]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig c) offer a retail motherboard for those who want to build their own mac

*shudders* Even if Apple does market it under a second brand...

[dviant]

The Mac OS is the deciding factor, but the cool industrial design is a huge plus. Macs wouldn't be as satisfying is they didn't have the outside thought through as well as the inside.

[dougiemac]

I'd only buy it if it were ugly and cheaper.

[sunrain]

I'll let my signature speak for me on this topic. It's the software.

[psmith2.0]

Of course I'd buy - and use - Macs if they were plain or ugly looking. I bought a Quadra 610, didn't I?

But these past five or so years - the iEra, if you will - certainly raised the bar and spoiled the hell out of us (so much so that Apple could NEVER go back to a plain, beige-ish case...unless they went with a new "ironic" design motif ). I take for granted that their stuff is going to look amazing. But once that wears off (and it almost always does) you realize it's all about the OS and software anyway, right?

So yeah, I'd use Macs no matter what.

It isn't about the appearance...but it sure doesn't hurt that they're so sexy and eye-popping. And I hope they always are.

[torifile]

It depends. I'm a laptop user and for me, form follows function. If the laptops were curvy and bumpy and bulky, the appeal wouldn't be as great. The sleekness of the laptop is one reason it's so functional. Then, of course, we have the software issue... There's no other OS I'd rather use. No other set of productivity apps I'd rather use.

In the absence of other software that's compelling, I'd have to say yes I'd continue to use a Mac. But if there were a combination of hardware and software that was better, I'd switch. A computer is a tool and if there's one that can do the job better than what I have, I'd be a fool *not* to switch.

[epicuresquire]

I really don't think running OS/X on a Dell would be as aesthetically appealing to me, though still far superior to running Windows on a Dell. I happily pay a premium for the superior form and function of Apple's hardware, and yes I do think it adds something, perhaps just subconsciously, to the overall appeal of OS/X. It's not either-or. It's both-and.

Epi

[admactanium]

for laptops, that's a different question since a significant part of their appeal is the overall design. for desktops. yeah. i had macs before they were stylish and i still preferred them. the quadra series wasn't exactly exotic looking.

[jdmacor]

I am currently thinking about "switching" to a mac, but I can honestly say that I would not even have considered it had they not looked they way that they do. I am slightly swaying towards believing that OSX is a better operating system than windows or linux, but not significantly so. Again, I think I might like it a little more because of the way it looks...

Honestly, for the money I would have to shell out, say for a powerbook, I would get hardware that is inferior to what is available on the pc market. If I want an ultraportable, other makers have computers that have 10+ hours of battery life, that even weigh less. If I need a 17" powerhouse, for editing God knows what, I can find superior specs accross the board, including graphics cards, monitors (man, that was a dissapointment for me, seeing the powerbook monitors...), and heat/power issues. Not being a big gamer myself, this last issue isnt as important to me, but no one in their right mind would use macs for gaming...

The only thing that is keeping me interested in the macs is their design, physical and os. Perhaps the conditions are a little different in the desktop lines, although it must be said that for a company stressing that it always has the latest/greatest hardware, they always seem to be catching up... the latest in graphics cards always come later on macs, wireless technologies a step behind, and where are the 10000 rpm hard drives? Don't get me wrong, I still stare at the apple website, drooling over the products, but that has to account for a considerable amount of the appeal. I feel that there is a lot of muscle behind the beauty, but if you want the absolute latest in personal computing, apple is not exactly the way to go.

I am not trying to sway you guys or make some philisophical point. I just think that your average "switchee" doesn't care about programmer elites or whatever. On the other hand, they do care about appearance, and while I cannot be sure, I think that overall appearance has the most to do with the apple appeal. I know someone will throw the security issue at me, but I have worked at computer stores, and people werent particularly concerned about this (btw, i mentioned in another post that these windows security problems seem to be a bit overhyped; i have all the free, mostly built in tools that keep me secure enough). However, when I went to my local apple store about a week ago, I was concerned with security, and low and behold, there isnt currently any anti-virus software for tiger I honestly think that the best thing going for apple right now is their looks, and it still may sway me...

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by jdmacor I was concerned with security, and low and behold, there isnt currently any anti-virus software for tiger

Well there aren't any viruses, so it's even.

Seriously, none. Anti-virus software on Macs is merely a nod to PC users you may pass infected files on to... from, of course, other infected PC users.

[kaseyha]

Yep, i owned an LC III. The pizza box mac was truly one of the ugliest computers I have ever owned, but I loved it anyway.

Everyday, sitting at my desk at work, staring at Windows XP, I think constantly about how much easier it is to do the same tasks at home on my Mac. And, from time to time, I get to break out my iBook and use it instead of the XP box.. god I love those days. It is about the OS, although having an attractive exterior never hurt anything.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by jdmacor wireless technologies a step behind

Sorry to pull this line aside, but where did you get this idea? Apple has been among the earliest adopters for both 802.11b and 802.11g.

and where are the 10000 rpm hard drives?

Heh. The stock drive (still in use) in my old Power Mac G4 is a 10k.

I feel that there is a lot of muscle behind the beauty, but if you want the absolute latest in personal computing, apple is not exactly the way to go.

That depends on how you define "the absolute latest in personal computing." If you only mean hardware, then you may be right. If you look at many of the replies here, though, you'll see that a lot more people care about the software, which makes the validity of your assertion questionable.

[jdmacor]

Originally Posted by Brad Sorry to pull this line aside, but where did you get this idea? Apple has been among the earliest adopters for both 802.11b and 802.11g. Heh. The stock drive (still in use) in my old Power Mac G4 is a 10k. That depends on how you define "the absolute latest in personal computing." If you only mean hardware, then you may be right. If you look at many of the replies here, though, you'll see that a lot more people care about the software, which makes the validity of your assertion questionable.

Well, for one, when I said their technology, I meant the whole package. The same product for $200 sounds a bit insane to me... Even beyond that, there is better than 802.11g (take a look see; technically, this is kind of in between proper transitions of wireless standards, but you still don't see apple cranking these out). And this is precisely my point.

BTW, out of curiousity, why can't you currently get a powermac with the high revving hard drives, at least not from apples online store.

And as for the validity of my assertion, I feel that I can question the software, because the most touted "new" features were free and available on my pc months before tiger's release (search index, variants on widgets, rss). So is it really the latest?

[psmith2.0]

Maybe not always the first...but most certainly done better/right.

Apple seems to either be first (and super early/ahead of the game) on technologies or approaches...OR when they're not first, they do take an existing technology or approach and improve/simplify it and put it in the hands of the non-geek, average guy public.

And I think that's really cool.

I do remember that first AirPort demo from about 1999 or so, with Steve holding the toilet seat iBook and passing a hula hoop around it (or did I dream that? )

Digital music didn't hit its stride (and become a "serious" pursuit) until iTunes, the iPod and the iTMS made it all work nicely.

Same with digital video and DVD creation. And, now, music creation with GarageBand. All for the masses, for people who never thought they would, or could, do any of that stuff.