Great Apple tools should matter

One of things that has mystified me during my long association with Apple is that most often Apple users are the ones driving Apple's success in many areas.  When I was at Apple, we often saw users come to Apple with wonderful ideas on how to drive Apple technology into the heart of commercial enterprises.  Not only was Apple often uninterested, but many times they were flat out uncooperative.

I've been amazed by Quicktime since the first time that I saw it many years ago in 1991. One of the things has been important about Quicktime is that it has been cross platform for many years.  During my years at Apple there were some very surprising customers who wanted Quicktime as their enterprise standard multimedia content handler. In most cases, Apple did not make that an easy road to travel.  I wouldn't be surprised if trying to get very large licenses for Quicktime might have soured more than one enterprise customer on working with Apple.

Yesterday, I read a post, "Reader Email: Mail.app for Windows," which finished with the comment that there really wasn't a business case for Apple to create a Windows version of Mail.

I was actually at a Cupertino executive briefing in the summer of 2003 when a large federal agency asked not only for a cross platform version of Mail.app but also a cross platform version of Safari.  They felt that the only way for the Mac to be a viable alternative platform for Windows was to gradually move to the Mac experience through software.  They were willing to work towards Apple applications becoming their enterprise standard.  The Apple executive response was that porting those apps to Windows would be giving away the crown jewels, so obviously the idea went nowhere.

I've often wondered how much more successful Apple would be now if a large federal agency had publicly committed to running Apple software on both the Mac PPC and Windows Intel platforms. Of course Apple would have needed to deliver some drop dead great software, but they are pretty good at that.

I suspect the federal IT people were also trying to solve what is often the biggest support nightmare in the Windows world, configuring Outlook.  When I worked for Webmail.us, we even created movies to help Outlook users change their settings.

Sometimes I feel that Apple's greatest challenge is that it has too much great technology, and often doesn't know how to get the technology in the hands of the right people, or provide just the right amount of help to get it adopted by key professionals in specific areas.

While individual users can take a platform to a certain level, at some point technology companies have to really work with key technologists in specific industries.  Apple seems to do a good job in the world of film, but if you get down to some less high profile customers, Apple's support is non existent.  Apple likes musicians, scientists, researchers, perhaps graphic artists, and writers. 

Some might even say that Apple has an elitist streak when deciding where to support Apple technology.  As far as I can tell, Apple must have given the cold shoulder to the real estate profession a long time ago.

I'm now working as a Realtor®/Broker on the Southern Outer Banks of North Carolina. I've been struck by how little Apple technology is used in the real estate world.  I'm not sure where Apple missed the boat on the real estate business, but the tools that Apple provides its users are exceptional for the individual real estate agent or broker.  Still as far as I can tell real estate people using Apple computers are few and far between in our coastal paradise.

There are some Apple oriented tools that I've already put to good use.  They include Xtralean's ShutterBug, RealMac's RapidWeaver, also Fetch, and Journler.  Of course I still use many of the old favorites like Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Excel, Nisus Writer Express, Filemaker, and recently I have even dusted off Adobe's InDesign.  On top of those, there is no doubt that iPhoto, iMovie HD, and iDVD are indispensable tools to me along with Mail.app. I've even done a couple of flyers with the original version of Pages which is the first real use for it that I've found since I bought it when it was first introduced.

It's a little bizarre that the real estate world which needs easy to use tools and technologies including Quicktime has not given Macs a better look.  There are of course many things in the real estate world from MLS systems to forms generation packages and client management software which just aren't available for Mac OSX.

A former Apple colleague, John Martellaro, who writes for the Mac Observer, sent me a link to an article about Tablet PC-like devices for doctors.  My guess is that this  isn't going to be an Apple product.

I guess this article brought home to me the idea that Apple likes to work at a high level and in general hasn't been particularly willing to work with specific industries on specialized products even when individual Apple users have opened some important doors to success. 

As I mentioned in my Guardian Unlimited article, "What Jobs told me on the iPhone," Steve and Apple are pretty careful in deciding what markets to attack.  Other computer companies have to fight a little harder for users so going that extra mile to create a medical tablet or a ruggedized laptop makes sense for them but probably is not in the cards for Apple.

Maybe Apple is the great generalist of computer makers, producing products that work quite well for many people, but rarely for the specialized uses that require serious ongoing support from the manufacturer.  I'm not sure how much potential market share that leaves Apple, but I suspect it is plenty to be successful.

This afternoon I was pleased to be an Apple user as I created my first website dedicated to showcasing a house.  I'm not saying I couldn't have done it with a Windows box, but I know it would not have been as much fun.

When you get right down to what keeps us going, having a little fun at work and seeing some beauty around us rank pretty high on the list.  At least they do for me, and so far in my life a Mac helps in both cases.

Now if I could just get Apple to build printers once again.

Comments

[vanity]

I used the Windows version of iTunes, and it just doesn't work as well as the Mac version. The foremost problems are getting the iPod to eject and moving songs in the file manager. Both are the fault of the underlying OS.

I think it's very hard if not impossible to bring the Mac experience over to Windows, and Apple shouldn't taint the names of their Apps by trying.

[Tom Barta]

I think Apple would be foolish to port too many apps to Windows, but I think they SHOULD write and SELL Mail.app for Windows. It is simply way better than the atrocity known as "Outlook".

As for iTunes for Windows being weaker than the Mac version: it is not surprising given the weakness of the Windows programming environment, but it is clearly good enough to drive iPod sales.

Filemaker for Windows is strong a product, again, not as good as the Mac version, but very,very good for a Windows app.

[Other Dave]

Apple may be better, but so much of the world uses the PC platform that it seems futile to buck them.

Another thing keeping Apple in limited market share is that it is EXPENSIVE.

[Terrin]

Two comments. First, it makes no sense for Apple to port Safari or Mail to Windows because it would be very hard for Apple to make money. After-all, Microsoft gives Explorer away. Government agencies are not going to pay for a browser when they can get a free one from Microsoft. Outlook is included with Office, which most governments agencies are buying for Word and Excel. They are not going to purchase mail when Outlook is already included with a product they bought.

Second, Apple never gave up on the real estate market. Real estate people are dependent on the multi state real estate database. This database is proprietary. The only way to access the database is by using Microsoft Explorer because the database relies on Microsoft owned Active X. The Mac version of Explorer did not use Active X, so it never worked with the database. Firefox does not use Active X either because Microsoft is not giving away free licenses.

At the time when the decision was made to use Active X, many Mac real estate people publicly cried out in protest of the decision to use Active X. Apple, however, was struggling to stay alive, so it did not have a lot of pull. This was right about the time when Jobs first came back to Apple, so Apple's future was still in question.

At the time, prior to Intel processors on Macs, if you wanted to keep using Macs to do real estate you needed either Virtual PC, which is painfully slow, and pricey, or to pay for a service like the one provided by Northstar where you would essentially use Explorer through a third parties server. Again, this was pricey, and a bit cumbersome. Business ultimately is about making money, so most people were simply going to adopt Windows where they wouldn't have to pay for those solutions.

Accordingly, to be fair, you should say that the real estate market embraced Microsoft only technology, which forced Mac using real estate users out of the arena. Short of paying for the MLS to be written using something other then Active X, Apple could not do anything.

Today, however, real estate professionals wishing to use Macs can wholeheartedly embrace Macs provided they are willing to use Bootcamp or Parallels to run Explorer. Of course, you still have to buy Windows, but the experience is much better then previous solutions.

Moreover, you are correct, many Apple programs are a good fit for Real Estate. It is just that professionals need Window's Explorer.

Apple also supports Mac using Real Estate people:

http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/realestate.html

[vanity]

The other day I saw a video of a school buying MacBooks. They got exactly what home users get, only 500 times, which is a lot of unpacking and setting up (and trash). I think this shows who Apple caters to, exclusively.

But this is what makes them "the great generalist", right?

If your customers are essentially big corporations, government agencies and OEMs you'd be foolish not to concentrate on their narrow needs. The left over development budget then goes into Vista Home Basic.

[Terrin]

That is really an inaccurate generalization. First, it is true you can buy a less expensive Dell computer. Dell, however, competes in the bargain bin computer market, whereas Apple does not.

In the low end market, Dell will sell computers based on yesterday technology for much less then an entry level Mac which is based on today's technology. For instance, Dell will sell you a PC equipped with an old school Intel Celeron processor, whereas the lowest model of a Mac is equipped with the latest and greatest Core Duo processor. Of course, Dell can sell you this for significantly less, as the difference in cost between the two different Intel processors is often in the hundreds of dollars.

When you compare the low end Mac, however, with a similar Dell equipped with the same processors, Apple often wins in the price comparison. Moreover, the Mac Pro and Mac Book Pro are significantly cheaper then similar Dell offerings (last time I checked anyways, which was about a month ago).

Finally, when you actually call Dell up to get that really cheap old school processor PC, it tries very hard to up sell you. That alone has convinced at least one person I know to give Apple, at my recommendation, a shot. Dell advertises its worst and lowest cost computers knowing many people will upgrade at the time of purchase, which is where Dell makes the money.

You say:

...Apple may be better, but so much of the world uses the PC platform that it seems futile to buck them.

Another thing keeping Apple in limited market share is that it is EXPENSIVE....

[Michael Daitzman]

Very few companies have the discipline to stick to their strategic plans in the face of money on the table. Frankly, only three immediately come to mind - Apple (we will not do that, it is not central to our plan,) Porsche (we make one kind of car - fast, fun ones,) and 37signals (basecamp will never, ever, ever, support dependenices. Not a bad idea, just not something we want to do.)

Why are all three successful? a. they know themselves and their goals, b, they change when appropriate (We will never make a cell phone/pda. We will never make an SUV)

[naum]

If you need to run Windows applications on your Mac, try Parallels - for $70-80 bucks, you can run Windows inside a Mac "window". I use it at work where I have a shiny new MBP but must exist in a Win-centric network. It runs everything I need (specialized accounting software), Adobe products, Windows scripting to convert documents lke a champ.

[Craig Kerr]

Hi, I have been a Mac using Realtor here in Eugene, OR for many years and am still trying valiantly to do everything on my Mac. At this stage I am trying also to not use MS Publisher for my flyers, and use Pages instead, but I find it a little wimpy. I was wondering though what program you used for that fine webpage you have every right to be proud of? Thanks.

Craig Kerr, Broker

[ocracokewaves]

I assume you're talking about the 126 White Heron Lane page.

http://coastalnc.org/126whiteheronlane/

It is done with Xtralean Software's Shutterbug.

http://xtralean.com/

It does a great job with with slide shows and sites dedicated to a house.

I use Dreamweaver on my Realtor® site.

http://coastalnc.org/realtor/

I have used Pages for some very basic paper flyers, but I have the first version, and it is a little quirky.

Unfortunately that version of Pages is completely screwy when you try to generate HTML. I don't know if the newer versions are better or not.

I am kind afraid to buy right now since a favorite Apple trick is to announce a new version and make you pay full price if you have bought more than thirty days previously.

I'm still experimenting on flyers and will probably be writing more about it in the future.