By john Gruber at Daring Fireball

Fantastic link, Max.

Defenders of the OS X Finder tend to be highly-proficient computer users with experience using Windows and Unix. And they invariably underestimate just how important the Finder is to traditional Mac users. To most Mac users, the Finder is much more than merely a file manager; it is in fact the interface to their computer as a whole. To them, the Finder is the Mac OS, it encapsulates nearly every aspect of managing the entire system.

And this...

If youre not a computer nerd, it is neither easy nor fun to learn to use the new Finder. It is discouraging. There is a sense of "Jeez, what the hell is going on here?" It is unfamiliar. When Finder windows no longer remember their positions and view settings, or when items get stuck in the Trash and cannot be erased due to permissions problems, an understanding of the Macintosh Way is no longer sufficient to set things straight. You must understand how your computer works.

Emphasis mine. Wow. He gets it.

Conversely, amongst Mac OS X aficionados � even those who happen to like the new Finder � the Finder is low on the list of reasons why they love Mac OS X. For many, it is at best a source of indifference.

So imagine if the OS X Finder were redesigned to appeal to Mac OS 9 users. By simply changing nothing other than the Finder, the entire "Mac OS X" experience would instantly feel much more familiar to millions of Mac users.

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

I would like to know where he gets millions of Mac users. I have yet to see any real evidence that millions are dissatisfied with OSX or any hard numbers that reflect that. Even loss of sales can be interpreted as disgust over slow and outdated hardware. Please, someone give me a link that honestly researches the dissatisfaction among the pool of mac users.

thalo.net is a good start

I have yet to see any real evidence that millions are dissatisfied with OSX or any hard numbers that reflect that.

If Apple's sales pick up I'm sure that no one will attribute that to OS X.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mithradites:
I would like to know where he gets millions of Mac users. I have yet to see any real evidence that millions are dissatisfied with OSX or any hard numbers that reflect that.

---

Check these graphs and watch the one on "Mac sales" and "Marketshare". See the line going up from mid '98 up to just mid '2000 (when OS X came out) and then down and down from there?
I know of at least 7 PowerMacs that Apple didn't sell in that period because of OS X, including one for me.

Max: Crapventional wisdom is that the graph would have looked much worse if Jobs hadn't "saved" the company. I suppose anything's possible, although I wonder where we'd be with an improved OS 9 and without the mayhem that always follows in Jobs' wake.

I have yet to see any real evidence that millions are dissatisfied with OSX or any hard numbers that reflect that. Even loss of sales can be interpreted as disgust over slow and outdated hardware.



That's moving the goal posts. The original argument for OS X was that the (then) new operating system was going to drive sales and market share. Upon its release sales and market share dropped like a rock and have yet to recover. Whether or not this negative result is directly due to OS X is difficult to prove absolutely. What isn't hard to prove is that OS X did not drive sales and market share upwards which was the original reason given time and time again for the change in the first place. It was argued that Apple had such a small share of the market at 5% that Apple must do something to raise that share. And OS X was just the thing needed to do the job. It didn't. Now. Apple's market share is much less than 5%. Making an argument that it will raise sales then changing it to insisting that people provide proof that OS X is the direct cause of sales that have fallen, is moving the goal posts.

Back when OS X was released many people (myself included) expressed doubt that it could drive sales because the product was too weak. Some even speculated that sales may drop instead as OS X split the user base. Now years after the release the user base is deeply divided, sales are down, market share has tanked, and folk are still insisting that OS X is just the thing needed by Macintosh users to bring their platform into computer relevancy.

Instead of us proving to you that it is the direct cause of the easily observed negative results why don't you prove to us how it accomplished its original goal of driving sales upward and how it propelled the Macintosh into the mainstream as was promised?

Or you can simply say it failed in that promise and let it go at that. It failed.

That's moving the goal posts. The original argument for OS X was that the (then) new operating system was going to drive sales and market share.

Well put. Why else would they go through the major financial pains and market risks of an entirely new operating system if not to increase sales? Of course, one could say that OS X was simply an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging that has been evident ever since Windows 95. One could say that OS 9 obviously wasn't doing the trick and therefore it needed to be replaced. Okay. It was replaced. World market share has fallen from 6% to 2% under Jobs II.

Whether or not this negative result is directly due to OS X is difficult to prove absolutely.

Well, Apple's sales have fallen while PC sales in general have been increasing. I think you can take "the economy" out of the reasons. Or maybe you can't. Maybe with money being tighter more people are simply buying less expensive PC's and it's not really an aversion to OS X. Either way, something's not working.

What isn't hard to prove is that OS X did not drive sales and market share upwards which was the original reason given time and time again for the change in the first place.

Good point. [Hey, it's a slow night here at home. I'm just following you around tonight.]