Macinchat's MWSF rumors

[Carson O'Genic]

I don't remember MacinChat being a rumor site. I really don't know these guys. For what its worth:

"Without getting into the who, where and why...

We have received confirmation that the following products will be introduced and/or updated at this upcoming MWSF '04:

NEW Powermac G5 configurations:

Uni III motherboard
DDR400 Ram

New Processors and bus:

Single 2.0 / 1.0 GHz
Dual 2.2 / 1.1 GHz per processor
Dual 2.6 / 1.3 GHz per processor

Things that have not changed:

AGP 8X
2 Serial ATA drives
Same port complement (USB 2.0, FW400/800, etc...)

Optical audio issues have been resolved, USB static issues have been resolved, and the fan subsystem runs even quieter than before.

The single 2.0 will come at the same price-point as today's 1.6. The dual 2.2 will come at the same price-point as today's dual 1.8, but the dual 2.6 will come in at a higher price-point than the current top of the line dual 2.0 (aaproximately $400 more). I don't think too many folks will mind, because this machine is the most impressive desktop workstation ever, on either platform.

The Dual 2.6 will ship in the first week of February, the other two machines will ship immediately.

New Apple displays (new enclosure):

20 inch
23 inch
30 inch

Pricing on the displays was not revealed.

New G5 Xserve:

Although we were previously told the enclosure would be 3U, we are now being told the enclosure will be 2U. Dual 2.6 will be the top-of-the-line configuration.

new iLife Application:

Apple will release a new consumer music editing application, and it will NOT be called iMusic. We have the new name, which is very cool, but we will not disclose it.

More info:

New iPods: We cannot confirm or deny the existence of the lower priced iPods.

This is shaping up to be the another great Macworld!

Michael"

Sounds nice if its true!

[whoami]

this would be great news indeed....
i still think steve's got a few surprises up his sleeve... ;)

[Ensign Pulver]

Link?

[crayz]

A dual 2.6 could beat the pudding out of any sub-$5000 machine living or dead and screw your mom at the same time :wow:

[Gamblor]

I hope this rumor is wrong... The Powermacs should all be duals (at current price points), leaving room for single proc G5's to be introduced starting at $1k.

[satchmo]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I hope this rumor is wrong... The Powermacs should all be duals (at current price points), leaving room for single proc G5's to be introduced starting at $1k.

..or poised to be used in the top of the line iMac 20" model.

[Gamblor]

... or better yet, both. ;)

[Eugene]

Raising the price of the high-end makes no sense to me.

Single 2.0 GHz for $1800 -> dual 2.2 GHz for $2500 -> dual 2.6 GHz $3400? Not a chance.

A single 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 shouldn't at all affect iMac sales. The 15" iMac's days are numbered. It's going to be just the 17" and 20" next round and clockspeed probably won't be an option. It'll probably be either 1.6 or 1.8 GHz, not both.

[mattyj]

Apple should keep the 1.6Ghz G5 and Introduce it at an ultra low price point. Even a Dual 1.6Ghz would be great at a price point equal to the supposed single 2Ghz single or lower.

[Nebagakid]

I dont trust it... Sorree:smokey: :smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

[jwdawso]

Entry 1.6 -> 2.0 $1800
Mid dual 1.8 -> dual 2.2 $2500
High dual 2.0 -> dual 2.6 $3000 -> $3400


Doesn't look too bad price wise, certainly performance wise it is a great jump. I expect the entry will have PCI-X, plus not be limited in memory. The new entry should smack all G4s, the new high should be faster than any x86...

Looks like there's room for G5s in other boxes... How about the original entry minus pci slots in a cube for $1500?;)

I'm hoping the display rumor is right, because I want one! 20" for $999?

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Arent they using DDR400 at the moment? :err: *Too lazy to check*

[Nebagakid]

Originally posted by jwdawso
Looks like there's room for G5s in other boxes... How about the original entry minus pci slots in a cube for $1500?;)
[/B]

Never again will the CUBE rise from its forgotten grave

:smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

[mlnjr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Apple already has machines out now with two 2 GHz processors in them, how is having machines with dual 1.1 and 1.3 GHz processors that exciting? Unless these configurations will be added to the mix?

[Programmer]

Originally posted by mlnjr
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Apple already has machines out now with two 2 GHz processors in them, how is having machines with dual 1.1 and 1.3 GHz processors that exciting? Unless these configurations will be added to the mix?

I think he was quoting bus speeds (for whatever reason).


I don't buy it myself.

[@homenow]

Apple really needs to keep a headless box in a lower price point. This should start out at no more that $1299, preferably $999 to allow a few configurations between the bottom end an the G5 tower. If I were building a "wish list" for it there would be at least 1 PCI slot, and AGP slot for custom building at Apple's stores. There is also a psychological aspect to the PCI slot, even if they are rarely used, that can be used as a marketing tool just.

Right now, at least in the Graphics industry, there is still a need for a dual boot and I'm sure that is part of the reason that Apple is still selling the "legacy" G4 tower. The current model is fast enough for most of the applications that will be run on them, though it could use a boost to at least 1.4, or if Motorola has 7457's coming of the line even faster. This could be seen as backpedalling on the all OS X statements from Jobs, but they are already doing that to a degree now. OS X is mature enough now for this industry, but Quark 6 isn't and it will take up to 18 months for the publishing industry to switch production to this or another page layout application (Some projects, like text book projects can last up to 24 months, and once they start the programs used to produce them rarely if ever change, even if it is a version revision, so there will be a need for OS 9 boot production computers for a while).

[Leonis]

Wonder if Apple will offer audio fix to the existing G5s or not.....If user only can get out of the audio noise nightmere by buying another machine I don't think this is good for Apple

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Link?

http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=1936046971&f=3126079281&m=529008865

[Wrong Robot]

Consumer level music editing application sounds nice. I hope that it offers at least 8 tracks of audio.

[Nebagakid]

Originally posted by @homenow
Apple really needs to keep a headless box in a lower price point. This should start out at no more that $1299, preferably $999 to allow a few configurations between the bottom end an the G5 tower. If I were building a "wish list" for it there would be at least 1 PCI slot, and AGP slot for custom building at Apple's stores. There is also a psychological aspect to the PCI slot, even if they are rarely used, that can be used as a marketing tool just.


never will happen. They tried something like that, it was the Cube, and it failed. It was a middle ground that gave either too few options and was too costly for what is was offering (no monitor). If Apple went any lower, than would not be making as much money as they could.:smokey: :smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

[@homenow]

Originally posted by Nebagakid
... If Apple went any lower, than would not be making as much money as they could.:smokey: :smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

By that logic Apple should bump the price of their entire line-up $100 +, because lord knows they could still sell them at that price so they are loosing $100 or more per computer.

The Cube came out at what, $1799 (which gave it a bad rap from the start) and when they pulled the plug on it they were selling the 450 Cube for $1299 if I remember correctly. This was also shortly after the Y2K buying spree, and in the heat of the economic downturn. There were many things factors working against the Cube, not all of them within Apples control. I personally think that at the price point at the end would have worked for Apple, but they needed to keep it around for a little longer for that to happen. I know that the company that I work for had a pretty large order for Cubes ready to go, but it was held up because of the economic downturn, so instead we got a bunch of 733 G4's that will never see an upgrade card and use a lot more desk space up. As for myself, I picked up a floor model about 6 months after they went off the market (for $699 if I recall).

As for the need for a lower price desktop (non-AIO), Apple acknowledged that when they kept the G4 tower around, which a quick check at the store is still available starting for $1299. They need to keep a model in there to cover the lower end, and it needs to get below that psychological barrier of $1000 for better "starting at" advertising. It should also offer a similar price/performance ratio to the iMac. As I stated in a thread on the iMac, up until recently the high end iMac held the same or faster clock speed as the low end PowerMac, and if sales are going to pick up then they need to regain that standing.

The main reason that Apple needs a "consumer" tower though is to gain market share. Although they have put the switcher campaign on hold for the moment, they still need to address this problem. They wont be able to do that with the iMac/eMac alone, they need another product to address the needs/wants of people who don't want AIO computers, but can't afford $1700 for a home computer. This is also the format that most Wintel consumers expect in a computer, and may be reluctant to move to an iMac because they perceive it as a toy. Add to that the number of Designers that may be putting off a new home computer purchase because of the price of the entry G5's, when a few years ago the entry PM was $1499 its now $1799. (I don't consider the G4 PM a current computer especially since it is not even using the highest speed G4 that is available and was used by Apple in that line-up, and the $1499 price was for a computer using the latest chips that Apple had available. Heck, even the $1299 Cube had the latest crop of G4 chips in them)

[HOM]

Originally posted by @homenow
As for the need for a lower price desktop (non-AIO), Apple acknowledged that when they kept the G4 tower around, which a quick check at the store is still available starting for $1299. They need to keep a model in there to cover the lower end, and it needs to get below that psychological barrier of $1000 for better "starting at" advertising. It should also offer a similar price/performance ratio to the iMac. As I stated in a thread on the iMac, up until recently the high end iMac held the same or faster clock speed as the low end PowerMac, and if sales are going to pick up then they need to regain that standing.
snip...


The G4 tower is being kept around for one reason and one reason alone. So people that have no option but to run their software in Mac OS 9 can. That's it.

Now for this headless Mac crap. Switchers don't care about headless or not headless. They don't care if the monitor comes off the iMac or any of the other nonsense that we as geeks would like to think they care about. Apple will not start to see big upticks in market share until these questions are not asked by every single potential switcher:

What version of Windows does it run?
Will old software work on it?
Isn't Apple going out of business?
Where are all the games?
Can I run Kazza?
But where will I turn for help when something goes wrong, all my friends use PC's?
Is there a Mac version of this obscure piece of software?
ect...

These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

[@homenow]

Originally posted by HOM
These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed? Your tone implies as much, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine was above.

I think that if you look at the bulk of PC sales today they are not AIO systems. Part of this is the price, another is expandability (wether used or not), and I'm sure that there are many others.

Right now SUV's are selling very good as well; so well in fact that Porsche, Mercedes, VW, and BMW have come out with SUV's for the American market. People looking a new vehicle wont buy a Porsche if they don't offer a model that fits what they are looking at. I think that there is a similar situation hamstringing Apples penetration into the Wintel market place today. "I just bought a good 18" LCD, why would I want to spend the extra for an AIO when I have a perfectly good monitor on my desktop." At the same time "I don't need a $1800 computer". I also don't think that I am alone in this opinion. The key is to offer people a choice in what they can buy, that is why Ford sells compact cars, sports cars (Jaguar), luxury cars, Trucks, and SUV's.

Apple may not see this logic, but they also don't see the logic in advertising the lowest price. Most of the ads for Apple computers in my area print the medium to high end prices. This goes against most marketing models that I know of, you advertise the lowest price you can (even if you don't have them as seems to be the case with most car dealers) and let your sales people talk the customer into a more expensive model once you have their interest. But if they are looking to spend $1500 on a computer and you are only advertising your $1800 computer you wont even get them in the door.

[Gamblor]

These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

I just don't get this attitude-- "If you don't like what Apple offers, then sit down and SHAADUP!!!" Do you really think you've added anything to the discussion? I don'kt know about you, but I think a big part of the reason Future Hardware is here is to discuss what we'd like to see Apple create, not just to ponder the latest rumor.

I agree with @homenow. I'd love to see Apple come out with something "cube like", starting at $1299, but hopefully closer to $999 (who'm I kidding? This is Apple we're talking about-- it'll be $1299 ;) ). One PCI slot would be nice, but it's not required. An AGP slot is. Use G5's in the current speed range. Four memory slots, and the current compliment of ports. They'd fly off the shelves.

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I agree with @homenow. I'd love to see Apple come out with something "cube like", starting at $1299, but hopefully closer to $999 (who'm I kidding? This is Apple we're talking about-- it'll be $1299 ;) ). One PCI slot would be nice, but it's not required. An AGP slot is. Use G5's in the current speed range. Four memory slots, and the current compliment of ports. They'd fly off the shelves.

But why would they fly off the shelves? How does a headless Mac address any of the issues that I mentioned as really keeping Apple from gaining market share? It doesn't! A headless Mac is not a switcher box anymore then an iMac, iBook, PowerMac, or PowerBook is. It's not price, it's not expandability, it is compatibility and the myths of compatibility that are keeping Mac sales down.

Ok, now I get it why a headless Mac like you've described would fly off the shelves. Cheap geeks would buy them instead of PowerMacs. We've seen this before with the clones. People's "loyalty" to Apple went out the window as soon as it could. It nearly put Apple out of business. Same with the dual 867 mHz PowerMac. Ever wonder why the low end PowerMac is a single processor? It's because cheap bastard like you would rather starve Apple of their revenue then save for a little longer and buy a more expensive and more powerful system.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but rather a pragmatist. It's sales of Apple's high margin products like PowerMacs and PowerBooks that allow them to give you the best damned OS on the planet. But like I said above, the only people that are clamoring for a headless Mac are cheap Mac geeks. A headless Mac is not the reason that switchers aren't coming over in droves.

[@homenow]

Thanks Gamblor. My take on this forum is exactly that, to discuss what is desired, what is likely, and even what is likely based on current designs, technology, and rumor. After all, once it has been released and we can talk more definatively about the hardware it no longer belongs in this forum, it is current hardware.

Hopefully there are some people at Apple in Marketing and new product development that read these forums from time to time to get some idea of what their customers are talking about.

[@homenow]

Originally posted by HOM
... Ok, now I get it why a headless Mac like you've described would fly off the shelves. Cheap geeks would buy them instead of PowerMacs. We've seen this before with the clones. People's "loyalty" to Apple went out the window as soon as it could. It nearly put Apple out of business. Same with the dual 867 mHz PowerMac. Ever wonder why the low end PowerMac is a single processor? It's because cheap bastard like you would rather starve Apple of their revenue then save for a little longer and buy a more expensive and more powerful system.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but rather a pragmatist. It's sales of Apple's high margin products like PowerMacs and PowerBooks that allow them to give you the best damned OS on the planet. But like I said above, the only people that are clamoring for a headless Mac are cheap Mac geeks. A headless Mac is not the reason that switchers aren't coming over in droves.

You are working on a myth as well, sales of less expensive Macs mean that Apples revenue will decrease. What Apple needs to do to increase market share is find a market that is not addressed by their current product matrix and build a product to address this market. Then they need to adjust their current product production levels to adjust for the anticipated drop in sales as current Mac owners replace their computers with the new form factor instead of an iMac or PowerMac. As for the profit margin of the new product, again it should be set to compensate for the loss in sales of those models so that Apple makes as much or more based on their estimates of conversion of current customers to the new form factor. If someone was going to buy an iMac or a PowerMac, and they buy a Cube instead then Apple still gets the money. What they need is to get the people who were going to buy a Dell to buy a Mac.

As for compatibility, Apple does a horrible job at educating the public on this. Most of the big software is out there for Macs, and Apple should make sure that this knowlege is out in the PC world, not just the Mac world. This means advertising in non-mac media, trips to Comdex, etc., that is where they will find switchers, not at MacWorld. They also need an updated Works that can read and write Word files, and they should update this every time Word comes out with a new version so that their customers are not left behind.

In fact Apples advertising doesn't do much to attribute to their sales today (at least in my opinion). They have nice trendy, sometimes flashy adds that rarely if ever mention price, yet price is one of the perceived problems with Apples products. Every time I see an local ad for Apple products in the local paper or ad inserts the companies that sell Macs (like Comp-USA) always show the higher priced Mac products, if they show them at all, this does no more for the publics perception than the anemic software offerings that these stores maintain for Apple products.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mattyj
Apple should keep the 1.6Ghz G5 and Introduce it at an ultra low price point. Even a Dual 1.6Ghz would be great at a price point equal to the supposed single 2Ghz single or lower.
The ultra low pricepoint is the iMac range. They want a general progression between the iMacs an Power Macs, with just a little bit of overlap possible.

[a_greer]

i have been doing my mac v pc homework for a few months now as a winxp user looking at macintosh and discovered that when you cut through the hype and bs in the sunday paper you ill see that mac(power, E- and I-) are great

example:

NEW BRAND ABCXYZ 2GHZ CELERON 256MEG RAM 40 G HDD 17INCH CRT (NOT FLAT CRT) AND CDRW FOR $399.99

the glitch is in the details, fine print:
1399.99-500$manf. rebate-store mailin rebaite and so on and so on.

MAIN PRICE IS REALY BALANCED BETWEEN APPLE AND PC
APPLE is honest and up front
THATS THE DIFF

[Gamblor]

A headless Mac is not a switcher box anymore then an iMac, iBook, PowerMac, or PowerBook is. It's not price, it's not expandability, it is compatibility and the myths of compatibility that are keeping Mac sales down.

Wrong. Apple's low end machines don't sell well because they don't offer a good price/performance ratio when compared with the competition-- plain and simple. If Apple had G5's across the line, their sales would be a hell of a lot higher, and their profits would be too.

And who honestly cares about making a machine specifically for switchers? Why isn't the entire damn line attractive to switchers?

It's because cheap bastard like you[...]

:no: Think you can make a post without the dumbass insults?

The ultra low pricepoint is the iMac range. They want a general progression between the iMacs an Power Macs, with just a little bit of overlap possible.

And why shouldn't there be overlap? Apple doesn't have a problem with overlap in the laptop lines-- hell, neither iBook offers anything really unique compared with the Powerbooks. There's actually a lot of overlap there. If they're not averse to overlap with laptops, why should they be averse to it with desktops?

[crayz]

BTW, most info says that the dual G5 has been selling extremely well. If there is that much demand for the high end, it makes sense to push those people to pay more for the privilege. If Apple did it, they'd assume the amount of money they'd make with the higher price would be more than the amount they'd lose from people going to the midrange model instead. It's probably a good bet that this is true. For example:

Dual 2.2 = $400 profit sold at $2500
Dual 2.6 = $600 profit sold at $3000
Dual 2.6 = $1000 profit sold at $3400

If that was the case, Apple could lose 4/5 of the people who would buy high-end at $3000 to midrange, and the 1/5 who paid $3400 would make it break even.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Gamblor is on the money.

I wished Apple would take on board some of his advice.

Drive down the price of single G5 towers.

Have the speed bumps all dual.

Get that cheap tower under 1K. Well, it is at the mo'. But it is G4 based (and not selling well because of that?) Bring the 1.6 G5 tower to the same 1K mark. 1.8 just above a K. Single 2 gig a couple of hundred more. Then 3 tiers of duals. Dual 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. More choice.

Gamblor, I wouldn't listen to the Apple 'grid' analites. The 'grid' is history. As anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years would know. (Gosh, who'd a thunk Apple would have 3, rather than 2(!) Powerbooks in their Powerbook line!? It's SO confusing! Apple shouldn't have the affordable 12inch Powerbook because it affects sales of the 17 inch Powerbook and hampers Apple's ability to make itself into a smaller niche. Or tower under 1K? Or G4 and G5 towers just to confuse Apple buyers. Or the pending switch to a 'two-tier' iPod range? Or 12inch and 14 inch iBook screen sizes...or...gasp, 3(!!!) screen sizes for your iMac 2? Why add a 20 inch screen? It would only cause confusion and cost too much...or why do a 17 inch iMac(eMac) because it would break somebody's wrist from carrying it around all day... Or better still, why not have two overlapping lines of overpriced AIOs, eh? (iMac/eMac...) Because that would make more sense than offering a little bit of choice ie a range of cheap consumer towers to complement a cheap range of consumer AIOs? And there's always the danger that pro users might confuse the X-serve and PowerMac range...or Wintel users might confuse Apple's Mac OS with their new Unix OS...or the iPod with a PDA...)

I'm sorry folks. I can't help speaking crap. ;)

Lemon Bon Bon

[Gamblor]

Gamblor is on the money.

I wished Apple would take on board some of his advice.


Thanks, LBB!

Hey Steve: I work cheap, too. :D

(I've got to, in order to maintain my "cheap bastard" status. :rolleyes: )

[mooseman]

...I think ol' (ad)HOM(inem) is dead wrong. I'd have several more Macs if they were priced lower. I want a headless cuz I don't need a monitor. I want a multimedia Mac that I can connect to TVs or put in with audio systems.

A 19" home audio form factor headless flat mac with a 1GHz G4, 2 RAM slots, 1 AGP Vid with HDTV component out and 2 CardBus slots built in wifi and bluetooth with a CD-RW/DVD for $699 with BT or $779 with BT and WiFi would see me owning 2 or 3. There is really nothing to prevent Apple from making money on such a product. The current eMac is closely spec'd. Throw out the monitor and big plastic case and throw in BT/WiFi/AGP/CardBus in its place.

As it is, I snatched up an old iMac motherboard when I had the chance and crammed it in a Marathon iRack. They are slick as hell, but they really need AltiVec to do the MM stuff. I just want to be able to do the stuff I do on my G4 Mac without it choking. You don't need much power to run iTunes, but you do need that AltiVec power for iSight/iChat AV, and Halo, and the like. And with BT, would n't you just love to sit in front of your big screen HDTV with a BT keyboard and mouse and play some Halo or UT2004?

There are so many different ways to use Apple's software, but they limit their market by having complete control over the hardware. Like that dude who use to work at Appel and came up with a little mini-PC with a 7" integrated screen. He wanted Apple to make it but Steve told him to get lost. So now it will be a Windows product.

No room for form factor innovation for Apple cuz they hold all the cards. Its a damn shame. OS X is such a powerful and well integrated system. Apple has some damn nice technology, but their limited product quadrant keeps many markets closed to them.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
And why shouldn't there be overlap? Apple doesn't have a problem with overlap in the laptop lines-- hell, neither iBook offers anything really unique compared with the Powerbooks. There's actually a lot of overlap there. If they're not averse to overlap with laptops, why should they be averse to it with desktops?
Oh GOD. What the hell are you talking about? Of COURSE the iBook doesn't offer anything 'unique.' That's not what I mean by overlap, Jeebus!

Here's what I mean by overlap. The preconfigured iBook range is $1100 to $1500. The preconfigured PowerBook range is $1600-$3000. If you want a 12" 1 GHz laptop, you must get a PowerBook. If you want something with a larger screen but don't have $2000, the only option is the 14" iBook. Comprende?

The iMac is $1300-$2200. The Power Mac line is $1800-$3000 sans monitor.

Apple's been keeping steady in sales ~800,000 units per quarter while their total marketshare slowly dwindles. There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

[imacFP]

The truth is Apple needs both good price/performace and also a lot of myth busting. My fiance's friend wants a Mac because she liked the 23" display, but when I talked to her about Macs the two things that most put her off were the lack of an internal floppy drive and Office not coming pre-loaded. The I've always used Macs and hopefully always will but most people are not as dedicated as I (we) are. Apple has the best platform, but not the most popular, and for many people that really matters. They don't want to be different. Apple's doing a great job with the iPod and ITMS but it could very quickly go badly for them. Having a $1,000 or less headless box is a good start but won't be enough with out a lot of education.

[Eugene]

Lemon Bon Bon, how many people do you know with 14" iBooks? Frankly, I hate the 14" iBook for the very reason you cite. It offers marginal advantages over the 12" because its screen is STILL 1024x768px.

As for the iMac. The 20" iMac is A-OK because the 15" iMac is going to go the way of the dodo. Apple's pretty much just trying to get rid of the backlogged inventory.

It's not really about the grid. It's about taking a distributed area and rechalking the lines without adding anything really new. Let's say Apple adds a headless iMac, a line of cheap uniprocessor towers, a true sub-notebook, etc. Not only do they have to add manpower to support these, they have to find a place to manufacture them. They have to stock shelves with them and advertise them. They have somehow convince NEW buyers, not just old buyers. Apple needs to actually maintain its marketshare before branching out like crazy.

[OverToasty]

Originally posted by Eugene


Apple's been keeping steady in sales ~800,000 units per quarter while their total marketshare slowly dwindles. There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

... lock a bunch of engineers in a room, and make 'em find a way to get HDTV show up on that lovely 20" screen using the vector unit ... might do something about that market decline.

Ok, I'm done, let it fly ...

[edit, grammar]

[imacFP]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

new iLife Application:

Apple will release a new consumer music editing application, and it will NOT be called iMusic. We have the new name, which is very cool, but we will not disclose it.!

If this rumor is true I beat the new application is based upon Sound Studio, which Apple seemed to be promoting as a good app to work with iMovie. I got it and it's pretty slick.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by OverToasty
... lock a bunch of engineers in a room, and make 'em find a way to get HDTV show up on that lovely 20" screen using the vector unit ... might do something about that market decline.

Ok, I'm done, let it fly ...
That's actually kind of easy. Add component and SPDIF inputs to the Mac and you can hook-up any of the cable or DSS company HDTV tuner boxes to it.

It's funny that most people don't actually use the built-in HDTV tuners in their TVs if they have one, unless they're watching OTA broadcasts.

But, watching TV of any sort on your computer doesn't really sound like such a huge selling point.

[Gamblor]

Comprende?

Jesus Christ, Eugene, lighten the **** up! Is it really worth getting that worked up over? You're damn near as bad as HOM... Is price the only factor that matters with differentiating lines? I really don't think so.

Besides, you missed the point-- if Apple is so damn concerned about lines not overlapping, don't you think they would have dropped the 12" Powerbook when the iBook went to the G4? Is there really that much differentiation between the two lines? Not really-- but Apple doesn't seem too concerned about it... That is, unless the 12" Powerbook gets dropped in a couple of months. Do you think that'll happen? I doubt it. I think all of the laptop models sell enough to justify the existence of every damn one of them-- never mind the fact that there's precious little to distinguish between a 12" iBook & 12" Powerbook. Why couldn't the same thing apply to a cheap, small, headless box? Arguably, it'd have more differentiation from the iMac & Powermac than the iBooks do from the Powerbooks.

(Who was it that said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?)

Apple's been keeping steady in sales ~800,000 units per quarter while their total marketshare slowly dwindles. There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

Right, their market share dwindles because they don't have machines with competitive price/performance ratios (except for the Powermac G5s). Do you think that'll be the case when the G5 gets rolled out across the line? We've already seen a pretty hefty boost in Powermac sales because of the G5. Won't the same thing happen with the iMacs & eMacs? Won't there then be room for some overlap, like there is with the laptops?

[Gamblor]

Lemon Bon Bon, how many people do you know with 14" iBooks? Frankly, I hate the 14" iBook for the very reason you cite. It offers marginal advantages over the 12" because its screen is STILL 1024x768px.

And yet, Apple STILL offers it, and has for what, nearly two years now? It would seem that they can sell enough of them to justify keeping that form factor around. Why couldn't the same thing apply to a CSHB (cheap, small, headless box-- I'm getting tired of typing it out)?

Not only do they have to add manpower to support these, they have to find a place to manufacture them. They have to stock shelves with them and advertise them. They have somehow convince NEW buyers, not just old buyers.

Right-- just like they had to do all that stuff when they went from one iBook and one Powerbook to two iBooks and three Powerbooks. Apple's been there, done that. They can damn well do it again.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Eugene
There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

Yup, I agree. The biggest problem with all these headless iMac/pizzabox/Cube ideas is that they really don't create a new market segment for apple unless you go below $1000. The only reason for Apple to worry about that segment is for edu sale, and they can attack that with the iBook. Apple would need to grow their sales much higher to add another cpu to the list and still maintain the advantages of asssociated with selling at the volumes they are now selling at. The original cube made sense for Apple becuase they were trying to make really high margins from it, so if it cut into sales of other CPU's they ended up making more money. The consumer figured this out and didn't buy enough. Did Apple release a cheaper Cube? No.

I wouldn't mind an aniversary limited edition G5 Cube, just to keep all the Cube fans happy and quite for a few years. However, a "MAC" aniversary doesn't sound like a good tiem for a "CUBE."

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by imacFP
... when I talked to her about Macs the two things that most put her off were the lack of an internal floppy drive and Office not coming pre-loaded.

I can't beleive floppy drives are still being used by anyone. I hated and stopped trusting them nearly 10 years ago. Now zip drives are, at least with me, starting to go the way of the floppy. I think that as the technology gets older and the price pressures increase, the quality goes down. Never had problems with 100mB zips in the early days. Now we are having failures all the time-and it sucks. Same was with floppies. didn't have much problem tossing them in backpacks when they first came out, but by the time AOL was sending them every other day in the mail they became utterly untrustworthy. There are so many other option to a floppy. Get her a usb flash drive or an iPod!

Office, on the other hand, will cost you-but remember if she really doesn't have to use all of its functions, there are options. TextEdit, keynote and old-man AppleWorks. Hopefully, MWSF will introduce iWrite.

[Gamblor]

Apple would need to grow their sales much higher to add another cpu to the list and still maintain the advantages of asssociated with selling at the volumes they are now selling at.

How about doubling sales? If the rumor of >500k Powermacs sold is true that means about 300k sold for Q1 04, since they sold about 220k in Q4 03. in Q1 03, they sold 158k, so they'd be at damn near doubling their sales over the year ago quarter for the Powermacs.

I think there's going to be plenty of room to start diffrentiating their desktop offerings, once the G5 gets rolled out across the entire line.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Besides, you missed the point-- if Apple is so damn concerned about lines not overlapping, don't you think they would have dropped the 12" Powerbook when the iBook went to the G4? Is there really that much differentiation between the two lines?
There's plenty of differentation. DVD-RW, 200 MHz and 256K L2, aluminum vs. plastic, video, DVI out, etc.

Not really-- but Apple doesn't seem too concerned about it... That is, unless the 12" Powerbook gets dropped in a couple of months. Do you think that'll happen? I doubt it.
I think the PowerBook will soon see major upgrades.

I think all of the laptop models sell enough to justify the existence of every damn one of them-- never mind the fact that there's precious little to distinguish between a 12" iBook & 12" Powerbook. Why couldn't the same thing apply to a cheap, small, headless box? Arguably, it'd have more differentiation from the iMac & Powermac than the iBooks do from the Powerbooks.
In what form-factor would this be? What magical new customer base would be tapped here? You have to prove to me these customers aren'considering the LCD iMacs first.

(Who was it that said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?)
Spindler perhaps?

Right, their market share dwindles because they don't have machines with competitive price/performance ratios (except for the Powermac G5s). Do you think that'll be the case when the G5 gets rolled out across the line? We've already seen a pretty hefty boost in Powermac sales because of the G5. Won't the same thing happen with the iMacs & eMacs? Won't there then be room for some overlap, like there is with the laptops?
I think that G5s will help the bottomline, but that wasn't what people here seem to be asking for. They seem to think a headless iMac equivalent and/or cheaper towers will somehow magically tap the market.

What magical boost in Power Mac sales? You're freakin' comparing the past quarter to the previous few....of course there's a boost. Power Mac sales hit ROCK BOTTOM in the previous quarters.

There isn't much overlap with the Apple laptops like I previously stated in this post and before.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
How about doubling sales? If the rumor of >500k Powermacs sold is true that means about 300k sold for Q1 04, since they sold about 220k in Q4 03. in Q1 03, they sold 158k, so they'd be at damn near doubling their sales over the year ago quarter for the Powermacs.
Doubling anemic numbers just makes them suitable numbers.

500,000 Power Macs sold isn't particularly amazing. They were introduced in June. Also consider all the hold-outs.

[mooseman]

...Christ, I've never seen such hard headedness. Are you sreriously suggesting that if you want to buy a Mac that you can simply add a PCI card in or swap out the video card or even CHANGE THE MONITOR ON!!! that you should have to pony up $1800 + tax? I mean, I know you have to spend almost 4 bills in PC land to get that kind of OUTRAGEOUS expandability. I mean, who would use that?

.../looks at his G4 with upgraded Radeon, USB2 card, SCSI card, FireWire 800 card..../shrugs...shakes head.

Wow. Nice to see all the liberated Apple users are into landfilling their computers to get the newest video cards and connectivity options. No wonder most people think Apple users are drinking the kool-aid.

[willywalloo]

Originally posted by Eugene
Doubling anemic numbers just makes them suitable numbers.

500,000 Power Macs sold isn't particularly amazing. They were introduced in June. Also consider all the hold-outs.

500,000 isn't a bad number, it's all in what time period it takes place in. Going by O.S. #'s, not amazing at all. When looked at as Apple Branded Hardware, it's better than where we were in '97.

-walloo.

[Gamblor]

There's plenty of differentation. DVD-RW, 200 MHz and 256K L2, aluminum vs. plastic, video, DVI out, etc.

Sorry. All that's really just gravy. Both machines are 12" laptops with G4 processors, and those simularities are a hell of a lot more important than a minor differentiation like aluminum vs. plastic, or anything else you listed (or all of them together, for that matter)...

In what form-factor would this be? What magical new customer base would be tapped here? You have to prove to me these customers aren'considering the LCD iMacs first.

Eugene, you have to prove to me that they're not looking for a CSHB + monitor, and are simply settling for an iMac because that's the only thing Apple offers, or going with a PC. The customers who go with the PC are the new market, as are the ones who buy an iMac and hate it because they really wanted a separate monitor (do you really think they'll buy another mac if the only one that suits them is $1800 before they throw in a monitor?).

What magical boost in Power Mac sales? You're freakin' comparing the past quarter to the previous few....of course there's a boost. Power Mac sales hit ROCK BOTTOM in the previous quarters.

What the hell should it be compared to then? The simple fact is the Powermacs are seeing a HUGE boost in sales. Why are you trying to gloss over that? Don't you think the boost is pretty damn significant?

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mooseman
...Christ, I've never seen such hard headedness. Are you sreriously suggesting that if you want to buy a Mac that you can simply add a PCI card in or swap out the video card or even CHANGE THE MONITOR ON!!! that you should have to pony up $1800 + tax? I mean, I know you have to spend almost 4 bills in PC land to get that kind of OUTRAGEOUS expandability. I mean, who would use that?
Yes, I am suggesting that because it's what makes most sense to the consumer and to Apple. As low-end PCs become even more like commdity hardware than ever before they will become even more closed.

Originally posted by mooseman
What the hell should it be compared to then? The simple fact is the Powermacs are seeing a HUGE boost in sales. Why are you trying to gloss over that? Don't you think the boost is pretty damn significant?
Compare that share (in percentage) to other keystones like the G3 intro, the original Power Mac intro, etc. It's not a huge boost. It's a decent recovery.

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Eugene, you have to prove to me that they're not looking for a CSHB + monitor, and are simply settling for an iMac because that's the only thing Apple offers, or going with a PC. The customers who go with the PC are the new market, as are the ones who buy an iMac and hate it because they really wanted a separate monitor (do you really think they'll buy another mac if the only one that suits them is $1800 before they throw in a monitor?).

*sigh* Ok, before we get too far into this "prove it! no you prove it!" game lets look at this for a second. The new market for this CSHB that you talked about is either the elusive switcher or someone that is going to buy an iMac anyway. As for the switchers, expandability only matters to geeks and gamers. Let me say that again expandability only matters to geeks and gamers. For the others what matters is software compatibility. Let's look at a recent example:

Originally posted by imacFP
My fiance's friend wants a Mac because she liked the 23" display, but when I talked to her about Macs the two things that most put her off were the lack of an internal floppy drive and Office not coming pre-loaded.

Any mention of CSHB? Nope switchers aren't buying Macs because they don't get it like we get it. Want some proof? Apple spent $75 million on an ad campaign designed to get pc users over to the Mac. Did they mention expandability once? Nope, what they talked about was compatibility and ease of use. I guarantee that Apple has spent a ton of money to find out what is keeping pc users from switching and if a CSHB was it Apple would have one by now. I know this because I can see how Apple has listened to its customers for all the other occasions. The executives are not stupid if there was this pent up demand for a CSHB there would be one.

Lets look at it from a different angle. Where is the market for a CSHB? Consumers are concerned with ease of use, compatibility, and general home usage. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Pro users are concerned with speed, expandability, and flexibility. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Cheap geeks are concerned with price, expandability, and tinkering ability. These are clearly served by a CSHB.

[Gamblor]

Compare that share (in percentage) to other keystones like the G3 intro, the original Power Mac intro, etc. It's not a huge boost. It's a decent recovery.

I think you need to expand on this, because I'm unclear what you mean. Care to provide numbers for those keystones? I'm not sure I see how doubling numbers could merely be considered a decent recovery...

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I think you need to expand on this, because I'm unclear what you mean. Care to provide numbers for those keystones? I'm not sure I see how doubling numbers could merely be considered a decent recovery...

If you listen to the most recent analyst (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analystmeeting03/) conference call Fred Anderson says that PowerMac sales are up to their historical average. They were down for so long by a combination of speed and a general slowdown of spending in Apple's traditional pro customers print and design. This doubling of sales is a good start, but PowerMac sales won't really start to show some growth until the economy for design starts to pick up. :)

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I think you need to expand on this, because I'm unclear what you mean. Care to provide numbers for those keystones? I'm not sure I see how doubling numbers could merely be considered a decent recovery...
First of all, the figures aren't "double."

Let's say you have the following hypothetical numbers:

Y1: 1.4M units
Y2: 1.3M units
Y3: 1.2M units
Y4: 1.3M units
Y5: 1.0M units
Y6: 800K units
Y7: 700K units
Y8: 950K units

Is that really something to be impressed with? That graph is not pretty, and it's basically what the pattern is. We won't know the true strength of a full year cycle of PMG% sales for another 6 months. Do you think they will once again break 1,000,000 units?

[Gamblor]

Let me say that again expandability only matters to geeks and gamers.

It also matters to people who want at least some form of future proofing in the machine they buy. A CSHB would allow someone with an existing computer to keep their monitor & just buy a new box. Not possible with the iMac. It's all or nothing. It also allows them to upgrade said monitor when they see fit to do so. Again, the iMac offers no such luxury. It's about options-- a CSHB has them, the iMac doesn't.

Did they mention expandability once? Nope, what they talked about was compatibility and ease of use. I guarantee that Apple has spent a ton of money to find out what is keeping pc users from switching and if a CSHB was it Apple would have one by now. I know this because I can see how Apple has listened to its customers for all the other occasions.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Apple tailored the switch campaign to the hardware they were already selling... would that surprise you?

The executives are not stupid if there was this pent up demand for a CSHB there would be one.

I don't think that's the case. When all Apple had were anemic G4 based machines and sales were correspondingly low, it made sense to keep the models offered to a minimum in order to prevent them from canibalizing one another. With the G5 and the increased sales a competitive price/performance ratio gives, Apple will be able to diversify their desktop lines in ways similar to what they've done with the laptops.

Lets look at it from a different angle. Where is the market for a CSHB? Consumers are concerned with ease of use, compatibility, and general home usage. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Pro users are concerned with speed, expandability, and flexibility. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Cheap geeks are concerned with price, expandability, and tinkering ability. These are clearly served by a CSHB.

All of the above customers are better served by having more options, which is precisely what the CSHB gives to people in the market for a $1k - $2k machine. What if a person wants a mac, but would be happy with the monitor they've got with their existing PC? The iMac won't work for them. What if a person wants better video than they can get in an iMac, but doesn't want to spend more than say $1300 for a machine? Neither the iMac nor the Powermac would serve them. The bottom line is, options are good. With increased sales due to the G5 being rolled out across the line, Apple will be in a better position to provide more options.

If you listen to the most recent analyst conference call Fred Anderson says that PowerMac sales are up to their historical average. They were down for so long by a combination of speed and a general slowdown of spending in Apple's traditional pro customers print and design.

And what was Apple offering the last time Powermac sales were at their "historical average"? Beige G3s? I seem to recall there was a desktop G3 that sold right along side the original iMac, and for the same price ($1300). Would it be so bad to offer something like that again?

[Gamblor]

First of all, the figures aren't "double."

Did you read what I wrote? I thought it was pretty clear I was talking year over year quarterly results, not yearly figures.

We won't know the true strength of a full year cycle of PMG5 [sic] sales for another 6 months.

That's right-- so it's a little early to be predicting doom and gloom, isn't it?

Do you think they will once again break 1,000,000 units?

Yes, I do. Don't you? If IBM keeps Job's promise of being at 3GHz by the end of next summer, the Powermacs will remain competitive from a price/performance standpoint. I think that's what it will take to keep Powermac sales at, or perhaps slightly below the levels for the current quarter. If they sell 300k this quarter, that puts them at 1M at the end of the year, easy. I also think they'll start to roll out the G5 to lower end machines, either in a CSHB, or the iMac will get it, or both. That'd help boost sales (across the board sales, obviously, not Powermac sales), too. It's also possible they'll add another single proc Powermac, possibly starting at $1599 or better yet $1500. That'd probably be an easier option in the short term than introducing a CSHB, and would at least partially fill the market.

Also-- The G5 may have been anounced in June, but not all models were available until September. I'm sure that had some effect on sales in Q4 03. If you want a real complete picture of the G5's impact, it'd probably be better to use the 04 numbers, which means waiting until Feb 05 to see the complete picture.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Did you read what I wrote? I thought it was pretty clear I was talking year over year quarterly results, not yearly figures.
But what meaningful information could you derive from such a small slice? Big announcement momentum and upgrade cycles skew the numbers like these. So if Apple will ship one million Power Mac G5s in 2004, how many total PCs do you think they will have shipped by then?

That's right-- so it's a little early to be predicting doom and gloom, isn't it?
I am neither predicting doom nor gloom. I'm predicting Apple makes the right moves and ignores the vocal geek minority's request for a SFF headless Mac or an ultra-budget tower. A $1599 tower is not a budget tower, and it is somewhat likely a tower at that price will be available in January as Apple finds itself with a surplus of those "Yikes G5" boards.

Also-- The G5 may have been anounced in June, but not all models were available until September.
This didn't only apply to the G5s.

[Gamblor]

But what meaningful information could you derive from such a small slice? Big announcement momentum and upgrade cycles skew the numbers like these. So if Apple will ship one million Power Mac G5s in 2004, how many total PCs do you think they will have shipped by then?

The information I get from it is the fact that the G5 has had a major impact on Powermac sales. The initial impact may fade a bit, but I doubt seriously it'll drop back to what it was last year. How much of an impact it'll make remains to be seen, but I don't think 1M units sold in 04 is out of the question.

I'm predicting Apple makes the right moves and ignores the vocal geek minority's request for a SFF headless Mac or an ultra-budget tower.

Ultra-budget tower? What the hell is that? I'm suggesting cube-like machines (albeit preferably with one PCI slot) starting at $1299, or better yet, $999. Is that really ultra-budget? At this point, I'd define ultra-budget as $299, and I'm certainly not suggesting Apple chase that market.

A $1599 tower is not a budget tower, and it is somewhat likely a tower at that price will be available in January as Apple finds itself with a surplus of those "Yikes G5" boards.

Perhaps, but $1599 would be an improvement over what's available now, and it's addition will certainly make the Powermacs appealing to more people than the current lineup. We'll see for certain what Apple is planning in a couple of months.

This didn't only apply to the G5s.

:???: I'm not sure I understand what your point is, here. My comment was specifically about the G5s.

[imacFP]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
[B Get her a usb flash drive or an iPod!

Office, on the other hand, will cost you-but remember if she really doesn't have to use all of its functions, there are options. TextEdit, keynote and old-man AppleWorks. Hopefully, MWSF will introduce iWrite. [/B]

No I agree with you but my larger point was many PC users think like that. They want exactly what they have in PC land what their friends have.

[mattyj]

We don't need a 'headless mac', we already have a powermac ffs.

What Apple needs to do is to bring in a lower price point for the base G5, and also, try to get down the price of the 17" LCD. This is obviously for the price performance issue. At the moment, Apple actually holds the crown for price/performance at the high end, that being the Dual 2Ghz G5 vs Intel and AMD offerings. What Apple does not have is the price/performance in the lower range (this includes the iMac etc).

You could argue that this has little to offer, as most iPods, despite their relatively high expense have been selling out (all of them are sold out in the UK at the present moment). However, this is a cheap product compared to a computer.

It is about cost. To those switchers, when they look at an iMac, they nearly all think it's a great bit of kit, in the way it looks, the OS, and everything else (iLife etc). Then comes in the reality check. Yes it may have a flat panel screen and it may have a low price, but due to the switchers never having the 'Macintosh experience' they'll probably buy the still far cheaper and probably more powerful Intel competition, despite it being ugly etc. The iMac is the big seller for Apple. Lets not forget it saved them back in 1997(?)...

Like Glambor wrote, if anything, Apple needs to introduce a mac at a very low price point. $999 would be the mark, but to be honest I can never see Apple doing this with the iMac due to the LCD. If Apple could introduce an iMac FP at the £700 price range it would be great, at the moment it is £999 exactly. A PowerMac at the price of $1399 would be amazing, even if it was a 1.8Ghz G5 when new higher speed G5 processors are released.

The problem is a combination of things, but it is mainly the lower end price/performance issue. Apple could also state that Appleworks comes as standard on macs and has full compatability with office, which NEVER comes as standard with windows boxes, it just doesn't happen. Unless you get some lame arse PC which comes with half the hardware it should just because it costs £300 for office. Ahem.

[OverToasty]

Originally posted by Eugene

But, watching TV of any sort on your computer doesn't really sound like such a huge selling point.

I agree with qualifications large enough to (I think) drive an iMac thru.

I just got back from Sears the other day, and they were displaying a 20" something LCD TV for some insane price, something like $3000 ... just for the TV.

Huh?

if you can get an iMac for less than half that price, and watch HDTV on it ... we might have something here.

Obviously, I also think the nature of TV is changing. Truism? Sure ... but I think it's changing away from big family room viewing, to more of a narrow cast variety. The family room is for movies and big events ... but your iMac, well, it's for you.

Gosh, I oughta be in marketing - Ahhhhhhhhhh!

[Nebagakid]

Isn't Dell starting to sell Home Electronics (besides their Whore Electronics of Computers) to the public? And, I believe that they are lower prices than average. Still, storing HDTV is even larger than DV because of all the lines of resolution, I believe, although I don't think storage could be a problem in all of this.

If they are making a new iSoundtrack, when are they going to get around to make iShake!:smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

[Ompus]

I'm a switcher. I switched from Mac to PC when my 240 mhz 603e became a tad slow. I'm still a mac fan...that's why I visit this forum regularly. But until Apple offers a non-AIO consumer desktop for under $1000, I won't be buying another Mac.

My current machine is a Dell Optiplex with a 867 Mhz PIII. It cost me less than $900 when I bought it 3 years ago. I've added multiple hard-drives and an extra CD-R. I've yet to have any "reliability" problems from this cheap piece of Dell junk.

I WANT an Apple. But $1300 for an entry level non-aio w/ a single 1.25 ghz G4 is ridiculous.

Clearly Apple COULD build an entry level non-aio for under the price they sell the eMac ($799). The fact that they don't is clearly a marketing choice. It's also a choice I don't get.

[knappa]

Making a CSHB with one PCI slot isn't interessting for anyone. The difference in costs between making it have one or three slots is minimal. I remember seeing a how-to on adding the slot itself to a motherboard from an old 9600, where that PCI plastic slot had not been added.
IMHO, Apple's offerings aren't so bad for the moment. As I see it 95 % of Mac users, either have no need for PCI or use 2 or more PCI-cards. The entry G5 is ideal for people who use cards, but don't need the power delivered by the dual procs.

[wizard69]

Originally posted by HOM
*sigh* Ok, before we get too far into this "prove it! no you prove it!" game lets look at this for a second. The new market for this CSHB that you talked about is either the elusive switcher or someone that is going to buy an iMac anyway. As for the switchers, expandability only matters to geeks and gamers. Let me say that again expandability only matters to geeks and gamers. For the others what matters is software compatibility. Let's look at a recent example:


Interesting comment but I'd have to say you have this a bit backwards Gamers are not that concerned about expandability except possibly in the case of a video card. Even with video, by the time an improved card comes out the computer you plug it into will be outdated. Often one finds gamers replacing both the motherboard and the video card at the same time.

Now hardware hackers are another thing along with a certain sub set of geeks, but these guys don't deserve to be grouped in with the gamers.




Any mention of CSHB? Nope switchers aren't buying Macs because they don't get it like we get it. Want some proof? Apple spent $75 million on an ad campaign designed to get pc users over to the Mac. Did they mention expandability once? Nope, what they talked about was compatibility and ease of use. I guarantee that Apple has spent a ton of money to find out what is keeping pc users from switching and if a CSHB was it Apple would have one by now. I know this because I can see how Apple has listened to its customers for all the other occasions. The executives are not stupid if there was this pent up demand for a CSHB there would be one.


All one has to do is look at the current PC market to see that there is a pent up demand. The size of the G5 will only fuel this demand. While I agree that the executives running Apple aren't stupid, they are also in a situatuion now of makeing a major transiton as far as processor mother board chips sets. It is one thing to have knowledge of a market demand or to see the need and to be able to respond to it. How Apple responds to the need is an open question, an improved iMac could certainly meet the demand if the price could be controlled and a few bothersome issues addressed.

So while a CSHB a Imac may not be it could fill the role of such a machine, if costs could be lowered and the issues that a CSHB solve be addressed. Chief among these issues is servicability - the current IMac looses big time here. The lack of expansion slots is not the major failure of the IMac, it is the overwhelming barriers to low cost up grading that have doomed the machine in many eyes. The fact that the machine is a generation behind, processor wise, is another issue but even with a 970 in the box the unit is pretty hopeless when it comes to addressing some CSHB issues.

I suspect that we will see soon from Apple a machine that addresses the low cost expandabilty market and the IMac (All in one) market. Maybe not a true headless design that many want to see but amybe something a little more end user servicable with an expansion slot.


Lets look at it from a different angle. Where is the market for a CSHB? Consumers are concerned with ease of use, compatibility, and general home usage. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Pro users are concerned with speed, expandability, and flexibility. How are any of these better served with a CSHB? Cheap geeks are concerned with price, expandability, and tinkering ability. These are clearly served by a CSHB.

Well I think that average home user is also concerned about space and cost. The G5 does not win on either of these accounts.

Pro users are often more concerned about buying a PC that is economical for the task at hand. For many tasks the G5 just is to expensive and big, the alternatives are to outdated. For many pro uses the cheap PC offerings are almost ideal considering price performance and the application. To get the same results from Apple often requires looking at the high prices G5 line. We are not talking absolute performance here but rather the sum of the features offered.

So from my perspective I would have to say that it is pretty clear that Apple would be well served by entering the CSmHB. That is a Cheap Small maybe Headless Box market. This market is defined as having a a need for good pefromance, seviceability and modest expandabilty. The IMac doesn't serve this market at all.

[Dave K.]

Originally posted by imacFP
If this rumor is true I beat the new application is based upon Sound Studio, which Apple seemed to be promoting as a good app to work with iMovie. I got it and it's pretty slick.

Or after Spark ME edition which recently disappeared from T.C. Electronics website:

http://www.tcworks.de/home/content/en/PRODUCTS/Application/SparkME_X/render_doc

[Gamblor]

Making a CSHB with one PCI slot isn't interessting for anyone. The difference in costs between making it have one or three slots is minimal. I remember seeing a how-to on adding the slot itself to a motherboard from an old 9600, where that PCI plastic slot had not been added.

You're right, but Apple doesn't think that way. Witness monitor spanning on the iBooks & iMacs. It would cost Apple nothing to enable it, but they don't in order to differentiate those products from the Powerbook and Powermac. If Apple comes out with a CSHB, you can bet that it'll sacrifice something w.r.t. the Powermacs. What's in the powermac that could be given up? Space for a second processor, space for the PCI slots, and space for the second hard drive, along with the fans to cool all that. I think giving up the PCI slots is a given, but it would be nice to have one in there for some future proofing.

The entry G5 is ideal for people who use cards, but don't need the power delivered by the dual procs.

I think the entry G5 is a pretty poor value, and the fact that it doesn't sell well in comparision with its siblings says that most Powermac buyers agree with me. Apple needs machines that provide better value in the market segment the single proc G5 is trying to serve.

[Wizard69: nice post]

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Eugene
Yes, I am suggesting that because it's what makes most sense to the consumer and to Apple. As low-end PCs become even more like commdity hardware than ever before they will become even more closed.

...I hate to be the one to break it to you, but computers are already commodity items. I use to sell Macs back in the days of Sculley/Spindler. Adjusted for inflation, Apple's entry level machine was damn close to 2g's. And that was for a 4 generation old 68000 chip (it'd be like selling the eMac with a 601 processor) in an AIO with a 9" B/W screen.

So, adjusting for inflation, what woulda been a $500 or less eMac with not even a full generation old chip in it. It would be, in their terms, proof that even Apple is forced into selling computers as commodities.

Apple needs to quit telling the consumer what they want and start giving them what they ask for.

Apple is getting ready to introduce a low cost iPod, going after the low end. Why? To get more people using their products and buying music from their store. The more people are using Apple products the greater the mindshare Apple gets. Mindshare is a precurser to marketshare.

Wow, that sounds like genius. Broadening the market for your products to increase revenue and profits. Someone hit me in the head with an Economics 101 text book, I'm flabbergasted.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Lemon Bon Bon, how many people do you know with 14" iBooks?

How many people do I know who have Macs would be a better question.

And the answer?

'Not many.' ;)

As for branching out. Apple already is. They have been doing so for a good many years.

I don't think Gamblor, Matsu and myself are asking for too much. A price cut here...and nip and tuck there...y'know, a consumer tower (consumers do buy towers...Dell probably sells way more towers in a week to consumers than Apple does computers for their entire line per quarter...)

There's no real need a 'prosumer' cube tower when you can drop the 1.6 and 1.8 into the current G4 tower slots come the 2.2-2.6 speed boosts. Apple have already shown latitude over the 1.6 price. And with speed bumps it could soon replace the G4 tower in price. It's only a few hundred away...

There IS a need such a mini-tower beast in the sub K market. I think Apple cuts itself off from alot of potential customers...who DO go with PC towers for a grand or less. The irony is...who better than Apple to design such a consumer tower than the same Apple that gave us the unequalled (suck on that Alienware!) G5 chassis?

In answer to your original question, everybody I know? Dey got PC towers...

Lemon Bon Bon :)

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Right, their market share dwindles because they don't have machines with competitive price/performance ratios (except for the Powermac G5s). Do you think that'll be the case when the G5 gets rolled out across the line? We've already seen a pretty hefty boost in Powermac sales because of the G5. Won't the same thing happen with the iMacs & eMacs? Won't there then be room for some overlap, like there is with the laptops?

Agreed. 50% boost in PowerMac sales..? If Apple could get ahead of the curve with the G5 in Powerbooks and iMacs then 50% boost in sales would be nice there also!

The dual 2 gigger was in the top ten sellers. People know value when they see it. So what does that tell us about Apple's consumer desktops? Or the 1.6 PowerMacs?

And the PowerMac sales have slackened off out of the top ten of the Apple store for a reason. Imminent speed boost rumoured to the PowerMacs. People KNOW Apple update them every six months.

And it is no surprise the 1.6 and 1.8 were no where near the dual 2 gigger in sales. Apple have to replicate that kind of '2 gig' value across their line. Drive th G5 into the consumer range ahead of schedule.

Look at what the G5 has done for PowerMac sales. The customer has spoken. A similar spike in iMac sales might occur when it goes G5.

Most people I know...a decent PC can be had for around 1K-ish. If Apple want to do more than run to stand still with their marketshare...they have got to be more aggressive on price. A single 2 gig G5 for £999 inc Vat would sell well. So would dual G5s above it.

There's no escaping the '3 gig' Pentium PC towers that can be had for a 1K ish. Oh, and Half Life 2 pending. Lots of PC people think like that. Apple have got to keep working hard...erroding the myths and REAL limitations that prevent PC users coming to the Mac. They have to be the Apple we know and love...and yet...distance itself from the Apple that drove themselves into the precarious position they find themselves in. 2% and counting an' all.

Take away iPod and 'other product' sales/profits from the last quarter and you'd see what I mean.

C+. Must try harder.

Lemon Bon Bon

[Lemon Bon Bon]

o, adjusting for inflation, what woulda been a $500 or less eMac with not even a full generation old chip in it would be, in their terms, proof that even Apple is forced into selling computers as commodities.

Apple needs to quit telling the consumer what they want and start giving them what they ask for.

Apple is getting ready to introduce a low cost iPod, going after the low end. Why? To get more people using their products and buying music from their store. The more people are using Apple products the greater the mindshare Apple gets. Mindshare is a precurser to marketshare.

Wow, that sounds like genius. Broadening the market for your products to increase revenue and profits. Someone hit me in the head with an Economics 101 text book, I'm flabbergasted.



I like what this guy said.

It's so true it aint funny. :( But, with the iPod...is Apple at last ready to slay the ghosts of the past?

Will they actually release cheap iPods to destroy the opposition..? Could Apple, gasp, actually be on the way to achieving critical mass (their nemesis!) with the iPod? And the resultant shockwave in Mac mindshare?

Perhaps there is hope afterall. How strange, perhaps it is the iPod and not the G5 that is going to be the Apple doomsday machine...

Lemon Bon Bon

[@homenow]

Making a CSHB with one PCI slot isn't interessting for anyone. The difference in costs between making it have one or three slots is minimal. I remember seeing a how-to on adding the slot itself to a motherboard from an old 9600, where that PCI plastic slot had not been added.

Apple has done just that in previous models, like the 6400/6500. It may not be much cost savings to eliminate one or 2 slots, but when you are saving that, say 10¢ per slot, over the range of a years production of say 200,000 units you save $20,000 a year in production. And your savings is not just in the cost of the slot, but also in the increased size that the circuit board and the labor to solder those connectors to the board. Now if Apple is contracting the production out they might be able to match that cost savings by buying the single mother board in higher volume, but if it is produced internally any cost savings in production means that they can either increases their profit margin or they can pass that savings on the the consumer.

Good post Moosman.

The fact is that the iMac 2 did not energize Apple's sales like when they introduced the original iMac. It is also lacking the price/performance value that the original iMac held, yet it costs more across the board than its predecessor. With the current trend in 15" LCD demand it doesn't look like we will see a price drop in them either. It is good to come out with "revolutionary" products, but at the same time it is foolish to ignore the realities of the market. Right now the market is not embracing AIO designs and Apple can't offer one with the value that the original iMac had for the consumer (not even the eMac, because it's processor and specs are even further behind the price/performance curve than the entry iMac 2's), so Apple should at least have an option that is not an AIO for the consumer market.

Now, to the computability issue, Apple needs to do a better job of educating people on this subject. It's not easy to do in a 30 second TV add, they need to get people into the store where they can look at Apple's computers and talk with sales people. A consumer bundle with Word would be a good idea as well. The only problem is that it is hard to get non-Mac users in to look at Macs when your prices are considerably higher than the competition.

Case in point, in today's CompUSA ad the first page has a Toshiba laptop and a Compaq Pentium 2.4 Ghz tower with 17" monitor for $749.97. Apple's offerings are shown in the middle of the flier, but the only computer listed is the 20" iMac at $2199.97. In the add there are no other AIO designs beside the iMac. Now if I were your average Jo looking at this I would think that Apple doesn't offer a computer for less than $2199 so I wouldn't even consider looking at them.

Now admittedly the advertising may be better in cities that actually have Apple stores in them (if they do local print ads), but that covers a small percentage of the cities in the US.

[wizard69]

Hi Guys;

Just thought I'd add a few more thoughts on IMacs and the desired small form factor headless machine.

From my perspective the IMac in its current configuration is beautiful and I would mind having one on my desk, but it won't happen any time soon. The reasons are expense and servicability. While part of the expense issue is related to the problem of paying a high price for outdated hardware you also have to consider what you are getting with that closed machine. For me the sum of the parts does not even come close to justifying the present price of an IMac. A few years ago the equation wasn't that bad but todays machines however is just to expensive. They are good machines if $$$$ mean nothing to you.

AS far as a replacement machine, headless or not, we need to see a couple of significant changes.

First is a substantial performance increase from the processor. At this point I'm not convinced that 64 bit is needed though that day is coming, what I do see is a need for a doubling of processor performance. Personally I think Apple realizes this and will deliver that much of an increase come the new year. They be crazy not to.

The second issue is the form factor. SMall is very important for many reasons especially considering the mass of the G5. Ideally we are talking about something the size of a thick book. That is something that could literally sit on a book shelf and not look out of place. Obviously a bit thicker than your average novel, but this should give you an idea of what I have in mind.

The third issue is expansion. The GPU will have to be soldered in. Sorry but I just don't see a lot of rational graphics card upgrades going on in the world. The important thinkg is to make sure the graphics memory allocation is adequate. What is really needed is a PCI slot or similar standardized slot for one or more expansion cards. Even here standard PCI is not a requirement, though it is probally the only logical choice, the goal is to work with in the small form factor. I do flirt with the idea of Apple offering a machine that takes Compact PCI expansion cards. Even one or two would offer an incredible size advantage.

Lastly and maybe the most important is servicability. It should be a snap to get to the Hard disk and expansion memory. I also think it is about time for Apple to move away from the 3.5 inch disk form factor and lead the market to much smaller drives. By the way I do hope that the memory bus is fast, also there needs to be support for a large addressable memory system.

Much of the speculated hardware would be very easy to deliver if Apple where to move to a SOC device. That is a processor with a built in memory interface and a Hyper-transport interface. I'm not sure if Apple is pushing its suppliers in this direction but it should be.

Thanks
Dave

[Res]

Originally posted by Eugene
Lemon Bon Bon, how many people do you know with 14" iBooks? Frankly, I hate the 14" iBook for the very reason you cite. It offers marginal advantages over the 12" because its screen is STILL 1024x768px.



Older people like my father get the 14" iBook. He could not read the type on the 12" one.

[@homenow]

Wizard,

I agree with most of what you said. But on the GPU I don't. First off, there aren't that many graphics cards for the Mac because there are few options to put them in. If there is a consumer level computer with the slot then there will be a larger market for Mac Graphics cards. Since most of the development for these cards is done when Apple orders the OEM cards it won't take much for ATI to come out with consumer level cards. And people do upgrade the graphics, and pay a premium for Mac compatible cards when they can get them (look at eBay) and flash PC cards when they can't get them. I think that there is a market for computers with this expansion option, and if Apple had a more consumer oriented computer that could be expanded then ATI would be more likely to offer cards that worked in them.

As for the PCI slot, I see it more as a marketing thing than something that people will actually use. About the only card that I could see selling right now would be a 3'rd generation FW or USB card, or a new ethernet card if the onboard port goes bad.

[applenut]

Originally posted by Res
Older people like my father get the 14" iBook. He could not read the type on the 12" one.

I'd probably get the 14 inch. Despite not having a higher resolution, the screen IS bigger and I prefer that for games and dvds and stuff. TO me it would be much nicer in my dorm as I use my laptop for everything from movies to music to tv to games.

and if you look at the competition. MOST of the low end portables on the PC side are 15 inch screens with low resolutions. People dont really think about resolution, they brag about how big their screen is.

[HOM]

Originally posted by @homenow
I agree with most of what you said. But on the GPU I don't. First off, there aren't that many graphics cards for the Mac because there are few options to put them in. If there is a consumer level computer with the slot then there will be a larger market for Mac Graphics cards. Since most of the development for these cards is done when Apple orders the OEM cards it won't take much for ATI to come out with consumer level cards. And people do upgrade the graphics, and pay a premium for Mac compatible cards when they can get them (look at eBay) and flash PC cards when they can't get them. I think that there is a market for computers with this expansion option, and if Apple had a more consumer oriented computer that could be expanded then ATI would be more likely to offer cards that worked in them.

As for the PCI slot, I see it more as a marketing thing than something that people will actually use. About the only card that I could see selling right now would be a 3'rd generation FW or USB card, or a new ethernet card if the onboard port goes bad.

There is no market for graphics cards on the Mac except a handful of gamers that refuse to believe that Mac gaming is all but dead. Professional Mac users don't need the latest wizz bang graphics cards from ATI or nVidia. Will it speed up Photoshop, Quark, or Illustrator? Didn't think so. Video customers don't need the latest graphics cards either. They use specialty cards designed for SD and HD capture and playback in real time not how many FPS they can push in UT2k4. Same with music pros. The traditional Mac consumer doesn't play games either. They are more concerned with iPhoto, web surfing, and email. Having a Radeon 9800 doesn't improve any of those either.

Dell sells consumer towers, so Apple should sell consumer towers. That seems to be what the CSHB argument boils down too. Therefore Apple should sell CSHB to compete with Dell. Am I getting this right? The problem is the Dell and the others sell consumer boxes not because that's what their customers want, but it is cheapest for Dell to make. It allows Dell maximum flexibility when it comes time to produce the boxes.

Now lets looks at the real issue. People buy Dells because they are cheap. But what they are really getting is a cheap wintel box. That is why people aren't buying Macs. They don't run Windows. 98% of computers sold run Windows. This is so much more important then price/performance. Only geeks and gamers care about price/performance. Consumers are happy to surf the internet send photos, rip cds, and write their documents. A 4 year old Mac or PC would be fine at that.

One last thing. I would buy a CSHB if Apple came out with one as I'm sure a lot of you would too. But I know that it's because I'm a cheap geek. And I don't try to impose my wants upon people that could care less about what I think is important. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't know a computer message board if it hit them in the ass. But if it did hit them in the ass they wouldn't care about it at all. We are the vast minority of a vast minority of computer users. We should realized what we want in a computer is not what everybody else wants.

[cubist]

Originally posted by HOM
... One last thing. I would buy a CSHB if Apple came out with one as I'm sure a lot of you would too. But I know that it's because I'm a cheap geek. And I don't try to impose my wants upon people that could care less about what I think is important. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't know a computer message board if it hit them in the ass. But if it did hit them in the ass they wouldn't care about it at all. We are the vast minority of a vast minority of computer users. We should realized what we want in a computer is not what everybody else wants.

This is the most intelligent thing in this entire seemingly endless debate.

I know lots of people with PCs at home. And none of them has ever changed a board, a drive, put in a card, or added memory. A few of them have bought new mice, keyboards, or yes, replaced a dying monitor, but that's it. They are scared to death of opening their computers, because they all seem to know a friend of a friend who tried to put an internal modem in the computer, and it never worked again.

Closed boxes are what 99% of computer purchasers want, both individuals and corporations.

[Gamblor]

There is no market for graphics cards on the Mac except a handful of gamers that refuse to believe that Mac gaming is all but dead. Professional Mac users don't need the latest wizz bang graphics cards from ATI or nVidia.

What about people who use 3D apps? They'd benefit from having "the latest wizz bang graphics cards". There are other uses for high end graphics cards than just games.

Besides, upgrading the video card in 18-24 months is a cheap way to avoid obsolescence. If you can't replace the card, you don't have that luxury.

Now lets looks at the real issue. People buy Dells because they are cheap. But what they are really getting is a cheap wintel box. That is why people aren't buying Macs. They don't run Windows. 98% of computers sold run Windows. This is so much more important then price/performance. Only geeks and gamers care about price/performance. Consumers are happy to surf the internet send photos, rip cds, and write their documents. A 4 year old Mac or PC would be fine at that.

HOM, can you give me a reason why anyone buys Macs at all? You keep beating this drum about software, but it's rather plain to anyone willing to look that there's plenty of software for the Mac. No, it's not windows software. Who really cares? You can still get your work done with it, as many of us do on a daily basis. Name any type of software you need, and there's most likely a package written for the Mac that fills that need. Hell, in fact, much of it is the same titles available on Windows. I just don't see why this is such a big deal.

You can't brush aside price/performance so easily, especially given how poorly G4s compare with cheap PCs. A lot of that is because of how processor intensive OS X is, but the exact reasons don't really matter. What matters is that a consumer can go into Fry's and check out a $1200 PC (with monitor) that is snappy and responsive, then test a $1800 iMac which has a half second lag in redrawing windows as they're resized. After that, the choice is easy, and the iMac loses. Software availability doesn't even enter into the equation.

We should realized what we want in a computer is not what everybody else wants.

You're suggesting that there's no overlap between what "cheap geeks" want and what the general public wants. That's just plain silly. Did it occur to you that maybe some of us have formed our opinions based on what our nontechnical friends have told us they want, in addition to our own wishes?

[Gamblor]

Closed boxes are what 99% of computer purchasers want, both individuals and corporations.

And my experience runs counter to this-- less than half of people I know would consider throwing out the entire box every couple of years, just because they've bought a new software package that runs a bit too slow. They tend to add memory, a hard drive, replace the video card or the processor, all in an effort to squeeze a bit more performance out of their existing hardware so they can put off a >$1k purchase of a new computer for another year.

Even if they don't, so what? What have they lost in buying a CSHB?

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
What about people who use 3D apps? They'd benefit from having "the latest wizz bang graphics cards". There are other uses for high end graphics cards than just games.

You're right, people that use 3D apps do need good video cards. But those people buy PowerMacs. So besides gamers who else needs the latest 3D cards?


Besides, upgrading the video card in 18-24 months is a cheap way to avoid obsolescence. If you can't replace the card, you don't have that luxury.

Avoid obsolescence? How does having a new graphics card do that? Oh that's right you can't play Doom 5 without the latest ATI card. But I don't see how 99% of computer use is impacted by the graphics card at all.


HOM, can you give me a reason why anyone buys Macs at all? You keep beating this drum about software, but it's rather plain to anyone willing to look that there's plenty of software for the Mac. No, it's not windows software. Who really cares? You can still get your work done with it, as many of us do on a daily basis. Name any type of software you need, and there's most likely a package written for the Mac that fills that need. Hell, in fact, much of it is the same titles available on Windows. I just don't see why this is such a big deal.

I couldn't agree more. There is all the software for Mac that a typical user would want or need. But the myths about Apple and Macs are very very rooted in the general computer public. These myths go much deeper then price/performance.


You can't brush aside price/performance so easily, especially given how poorly G4s compare with cheap PCs. A lot of that is because of how processor intensive OS X is, but the exact reasons don't really matter. What matters is that a consumer can go into Fry's and check out a $1200 PC (with monitor) that is snappy and responsive, then test a $1800 iMac which has a half second lag in redrawing windows as they're resized. After that, the choice is easy, and the iMac loses. Software availability doesn't even enter into the equation.

I can brush it aside because for the vast majority of computer users the question is "Is this fast enough for what I am going to do?" That's why Intel is starting to go after the gaming market. The sales of their high end chips is down because for 90% of the market it makes no difference if they have a 2 or 3 GHz chip in their box. You're not really talking about window resizing are you? I have never ever heard anyone but a Mac geek complain about window resizing before. This is a phenomena that seems to have cropped up over night. All around the world there are thousands of geeks checking to see if their windows resize quick enough. I'm calling bull shit on that.


You're suggesting that there's no overlap between what "cheap geeks" want and what the general public wants. That's just plain silly. Did it occur to you that maybe some of us have formed our opinions based on what our nontechnical friends have told us they want, in addition to our own wishes?

No I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that there is not a large enough market for a CSHB for Apple to make one. Almost all of the sales of a CSHB would come from within Apple's own customer base and it would cannibalize higher margin products that allow Apple to spend the money on stuff we all want like OSX. You may have formed your opinion by talking to your friends, that's fine, but I formed my opinion after having worked at an ARS for two years. After selling over 3000 Macs to switchers and Mac people alike. Every day I heard the same questions about compatibility and software. The only times I heard a request for a CSHB was from Mac geeks that weren't going to save for a little more and buy a PowerMac or didn't want an iMac because of the stigma associated with it.

[hmurchison]

People let's stop quoting fallacious statistics.

%98 of computers sold do NOT run windows! Perhaps 98% of consumer computers do but overall the numbers are lower with shares by companies that make Unix computers(Sun, IBM etc) factoring in.

What about people who use 3D apps? They'd benefit from having "the latest wizz bang graphics cards". There are other uses for high end graphics cards than just games.

Besides, upgrading the video card in 18-24 months is a cheap way to avoid obsolescence. If you can't replace the card, you don't have that luxury.

If I use 3D apps I'm going to want a Wildcat or Quadro level card with certified drivers. Not a game card.

Upgrading your card in 18 months will benefit your games. 2D performance has been static for years now. If you're not a gamer upgrading your video card means squat. As long as I can average 30 fps in the games I play i'm happy.

Now for Murchy's obligatory rant. It's really about the software. Apple can differentiate itself here by enabling apps that make Mac purchases necessary. Cross-Platform is not a boon to Apple in it's current positon.

[HOM]

Originally posted by hmurchison
People let's stop quoting fallacious statistics.

%98 of computers sold do NOT run windows! Perhaps 98% of consumer computers do but overall the numbers are lower with shares by companies that make Unix computers(Sun, IBM etc) factoring in.


Fair enough, but I think we are talking about general consumers and not people that are buying big iron or specialty boxes. :)

Originally posted by hmurchison

If I use 3D apps I'm going to want a Wildcat or Quadro level card with certified drivers. Not a game card.

Upgrading your card in 18 months will benefit your games. 2D performance has been static for years now. If you're not a gamer upgrading your video card means squat. As long as I can average 30 fps in the games I play i'm happy.

Now for Murchy's obligatory rant. It's really about the software. Apple can differentiate itself here by enabling apps that make Mac purchases necessary. Cross-Platform is not a boon to Apple in it's current positon.

HERE HERE!!! Especially the comment about creating killer apps for the Mac. That's why Apple has been pushing the digital hub apps for so long now. I think the strategy makes sense, but it still needs another round of "OMG I can't believe they came up with that" features to really start kicking in. :)

[mattyj]

Price/Performance is important. One sole reason. The majority of buyers may look at an Apple product, think it's great, but they look at the competition, the see higher clock speeds, bigger memory, faster processors etc.

According to the facts (I use that term loosely), buying a 'wintel' box means getting more for your money. That is the reason why macs don't fly off the shelves. Most buyers are not 'tech savvy' and therefore go with what they think is best, i.e. the fastest processor, the most RAM, the biggest hard drive and best screen.

Why else do you think Dell offers a PC for £800 with a 2.8Ghz P4, 256MB RAM, 120GB HD and 17" screen? It attracts buyers because they don't know enough about the products in the first place.

[Gamblor]

So besides gamers who else needs the latest 3D cards?

Anybody who uses quartz extreme? Also, don't assume that everybody who runs 3D apps has (or even needs) the latest and greatest hardware. It's not necessarily the case.

Avoid obsolescence? How does having a new graphics card do that? Oh that's right you can't play Doom 5 without the latest ATI card. But I don't see how 99% of computer use is impacted by the graphics card at all.

When QE came out, those people who had machines with AGP slots could upgrade their video cards and get the benefits of it. Everybody else (who didn't have QE capable video) was screwed.

I can brush it aside because for the vast majority of computer users the question is "Is this fast enough for what I am going to do?"

In that case, the vast majority of computer users would be satisfied with a $299 PC. Do you really think Apple can compete in that segment? Should they even try?

You're not really talking about window resizing are you?

Yes, I am.

I have never ever heard anyone but a Mac geek complain about window resizing before. This is a phenomena that seems to have cropped up over night.

People do, and it isn't. I've seen people in places like Fry's test out an iMac and snicker because the interface is so slow. Hell, they've probably got an old Pentium II or III system at home that runs circles around the iMac. Apple loses another sale.

I'm calling bull shit on that.

Well, I don't know what to tell you, man. That's my experience.

Almost all of the sales of a CSHB would come from within Apple's own customer base and it would cannibalize higher margin products that allow Apple to spend the money on stuff we all want like OSX.

How do you know a CSHB would be a lower margin product than an eMac or iMac? You're assuming a hell of a lot here. I honestly don't see why Apple can't make %30 on a CSHB with a 1.6GHz G5 costing $1300. Are they really that inept?

After selling over 3000 Macs to switchers and Mac people alike. Every day I heard the same questions about compatibility and software.

And what were the reasons given by the people who didn't buy a Mac? Did the people simply not believe you when you told them about the software available for the Mac? Did it occur to you that the people who bought computers from you weren't concerned with price/performance as a primary motivation? What about all the people that didn't even bother to come in because they knew Apple's price/performance sucked? How do they figure into your experience? Has it occured to you that perhaps in that same period you could have sold 5000 Macs if Apple had machines with more competitive hardware? Have you talked with some of your colleagues who sell PCs and asked them what they tell people to steer them away from purchasing Macs? Do you think they tell them lies about software availability which could easily be disproved by a quick visit to apple.com, or do they talk about the G4 based Mac's horrible price/performance?

[Gamblor]

If I use 3D apps I'm going to want a Wildcat or Quadro level card with certified drivers. Not a game card.

Are either of those cards available for a mac yet? If not, what's their relevance to the current discussion?

Upgrading your card in 18 months will benefit your games. 2D performance has been static for years now. If you're not a gamer upgrading your video card means squat. As long as I can average 30 fps in the games I play i'm happy.


Sorry, but I simply don't agree with that. Witness the lack of "professional" 3D cards for the mac, and yet programs like Maya and Lightwave do exist for it.

In the past couple of years, the high end video cards have lost their appeal to many 3D app users, because the "game" cards have gotten so good. Unless you're doing real high end stuff and pushing the hardware to it's limit, a "game" card for typical 3D apps is adequate. Besides, we're talking about a mid-level headless box here-- not a top end machine where spending $2k on a video card is justified.

[mattyj]

That is correct. Many gaming graphics cards are now seen to be the cheaper professional 3d option. The latest generation is very powerful, in fact, professional cards have little to offer apart from their 3d app orientated drivers (which are more stable) and other hardware components which are mostly bolt ons to the highest end gaming graphics card. Many do not see the performance gained from from to the gaming cards to the professional cards good enough when taking the price into consideration.

You'll find most independant animators etc buy the highest end gaming cards, as the professional cards are too expensive for them to buy. It is mainly companies that buy the professional cards, not individual buyers, and so having the option of professional graphics cards would be more of a 'we have them too' than a sales booster.

[Gamblor]

There are a few other apps that benefit from 3D accelleration, as well. On the PC side, AutoCAD & ESRI's 3D Analyst are two examples that immediately come to mind. Depending on how complex the data is, a high end consumer 3D card may provide a significant boost in performance over what would be built in to the motherboard in an AIO. There are other apps, too, that have 3D modules that would benefit from a "game" card-- IDL & MathCAD type programs come to mind.

The use of these cards is not all limited to games and 3D content creation. There are a lot of other apps that would benefit as well.

[mooseman]

Originally posted by HOM
[B]You're right, people that use 3D apps do need good video cards. But those people buy PowerMacs. So besides gamers who else needs the latest 3D cards?



Avoid obsolescence? How does having a new graphics card do that? Oh that's right you can't play Doom 5 without the latest ATI card. But I don't see how 99% of computer use is impacted by the graphics card at all.



...mmm, wow. No. I can see how much ignorance plays into your posts. Try running Quartz Extreme on a prev. Gen iMac. Won't work will it? I guess if you want to take advantage of all the performance OS X has to offer you'd have to have a newer gen. vid card, wouldn't ya? Do you open, move, and resize windows on a daily basis? Is manipulating an object on the monitor something you do more than 1% of the time?

Yeah, me too. Guess it would be nice if you could have just upgraded the video on that consumer machine. I guess you'll just have to drop another 15 bills to get soemthing that can run Quartz Extreme. Yay for Apple! Boo for the (former)customer!

Which brings me to another point. I know a guy who had 5 iMacs for his employees to do office work on. He wanted to be an "all Mac" office. Then, 3 out the 5 iMacs lost their ethernet ports. It was a common failing of his model iMac. The only solution to get them back on the net (no USB/Ethernet convertors were available for OS X or OS 9) was a full mobo replacement for $450. No, had it been a PC, he coulda fixed it for a generic $10 LAN card.

So, it came time to repalce the ol' iMacs and he replaced them with....PCs. Apple loses another one!

Why can't Apple build a simple Education/Business Mac. They don't need bleeding edge G5s. Just middle of the road performance, reasonable pricing, and easy servicability.

Is that asking too much? A huge market exists between that $799 price point and $1799 that Apple charges for the cheapest tower. In fact the largest % of the market exists in that price gap. Apple needs something to compete with PCs head on in that gap.

The new iMac was a failure. Take your lumps, learn, move on. Make a pretty mini tower and the world will be a better place, Stevie. ;)

[hmurchison]

So, it came time to repalce the ol' iMacs and he replaced them with....PCs. Apple loses another one!

I'm curious. How was he able to switch over to PC so easily? He had to be running either a PC Server or had all the computers networked directly. This illustrates the danger of cross platform software. Hardware is the fishing pole and line but software is the "hook"

I agree on the expandability however. When ports go bad(and they do) you have to have a way of fixing it without incurring a $450 charge(shame on Apple)

The truth of it really is Apple is afraid. For every eMac they sell they're thinking "Why didn't that person buy a iMac or a Powermac?". While Dell focusing on lowering costs of production and selling the "Dell" Brand Apple obsesses over not just selling Apple but selling the profitable lines.

I propose that Apple endorses "Newcard" in the future
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022103pcmcianewcard.asp

This is small enough to maintain small form factors and fast enough to run just about anything. Since it is based a bit on PCI-Express wouldn't it be nifty to upgrade video graphics with a ATI or Nvidia Newcard? That would cure alot of the issues buyers have about integrated systems.

[hmurchison]

More newcard info

http://www.pcmcia.org/newcard.htm

PC Card technology adds expansion capabilities such as memory, mass storage, networking and wireless communications to computers and other communications and consumer electronics devices. Future expansion capabilities range from wireless communications, ultra wideband TV tuners, security card readers to optical compression/encryption and smart clocking.

Applications that are expected to utilize NEWCARD include:

* Communications: wireless and wired
* Storage: rotating and solid state; optical and magnetic micro-drives
* I/O connectivity: legacy ports, IEEE 1394, SCSI ports
* Security: smart cards and identity sensors
* Adapters: consumer flash memory cards, external drives

Apple may want to rethink the small "headless" form factor. With Newcard PCI Chassis will continue to become smaller and more efficient but keeping the same expandability. Obviously Apple likes integrated systems because they get the profit and revenue of the monitor as well but if they simply add the appropriate value to their monitors everything will be fine.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Nebagakid
Isn't Dell starting to sell Home Electronics (besides their Whore Electronics of Computers) to the public? And, I believe that they are lower prices than average. Still, storing HDTV is even larger than DV because of all the lines of resolution, I believe, although I don't think storage could be a problem in all of this.
1080i HDTV content is right around 20 mbps, so figure an 80 GB HDD to hold <9 hours of HD content. Comcast is right now testing their HD-DVR/tuner box. I figure on upgrading to that as soon as they are available...should be an extra $10 a month.

[jwdawso]

Originally posted by mooseman
...mmm, wow. No. I can see how much ignorance plays into your posts. Try running Quartz Extreme on a prev. Gen iMac. Won't work will it? I guess if you want to take advantage of all the performance OS X has to offer you'd have to have a newer gen. vid card, wouldn't ya? Do you open, move, and resize windows on a daily basis? Is manipulating an object on the monitor something you do more than 1% of the time?

Yeah, me too. Guess it would be nice if you could have just upgraded the video on that consumer machine. I guess you'll just have to drop another 15 bills to get soemthing that can run Quartz Extreme. Yay for Apple! Boo for the (former)customer!

Which brings me to another point. I know a guy who had 5 iMacs for his employees to do office work on. He wanted to be an "all Mac" office. Then, 3 out the 5 iMacs lost their ethernet ports. It was a common failing of his model iMac. The only solution to get them back on the net (no USB/Ethernet convertors were available for OS X or OS 9) was a full mobo replacement for $450. No, had it been a PC, he coulda fixed it for a generic $10 LAN card.

So, it came time to repalce the ol' iMacs and he replaced them with....PCs. Apple loses another one!

Why can't Apple build a simple Education/Business Mac. They don't need bleeding edge G5s. Just middle of the road performance, reasonable pricing, and easy servicability.

Is that asking too much? A huge market exists between that $799 price point and $1799 that Apple charges for the cheapest tower. In fact the largest % of the market exists in that price gap. Apple needs something to compete with PCs head on in that gap.

The new iMac was a failure. Take your lumps, learn, move on. Make a pretty mini tower and the world will be a better place, Stevie. ;)

You are so full of yourself! If a G3 gumdrop has the horsepower for Education/Business, then QE is not the make or break item:no: You're example is strictly anecdotal. "I know a guy that had a bunch of PC go balooey with the last seventeen viruses, and Wintel lost another one."

Go make up your own thread about beating down Apple because Apple doesn't produce the computer you want, and invite all your high school friends to join you. This thread is about MWSF rumors, not your pontificating on how dumb Apple is and how smart you are.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mooseman
...I hate to be the one to break it to you, but computers are already commodity items. I use to sell Macs back in the days of Sculley/Spindler. Adjusted for inflation, Apple's entry level machine was damn close to 2g's. And that was for a 4 generation old 68000 chip (it'd be like selling the eMac with a 601 processor) in an AIO with a 9" B/W screen.
No, PCs are still not true commodity items. To be a commodity, the item should be maintenance free, cheap and replaceable on a whim. not even the WalMart $199 PC satisfies that, nor the eMachines of old that tied you to 3 years of dial-up.

Like it or not, PCs are becoming more closed. Dells don't adhere to true ATX standards. UTX is coming, but that might fork things even further. Even enthusiast motherboards have fewer and fewer PCI slots to accomodate things like hefty video cards that would occupy the adjacent slot to an AGP slot anyway.

Apple needs to quit telling the consumer what they want and start giving them what they ask for.
The consumer is asking for a no-nonsense, low-maintenance box that they never have to open and comes with everything. They aren't specifically asking for a drab SFF cube-shaped Shuttle-esque Mac.

Apple is getting ready to introduce a low cost iPod, going after the low end. Why? To get more people using their products and buying music from their store. The more people are using Apple products the greater the mindshare Apple gets. Mindshare is a precurser to marketshare.
iPods are commodity items. They are one piece. Everything you need comes in the box. When the iPod dies outside of the warranty period, you replace it instead of repairing it. The original iPod was the geek edition...*music and computer* geeks are going to have more music than anybody. Now Apple's bringing out the iPod for the masses. Would a SFF Mac be for the masses or do several Mac products already satisfy this segment? eMac, iMac, iBook, PowerBook?

Someone hit me in the head with an Economics 101 text book, I'm flabbergasted.
Good idea.

[mooseman]

Originally posted by jwdawso
You are so full of yourself! If a G3 gumdrop has the horsepower for Education/Business, then QE is not the make or break item:no: You're example is strictly anecdotal. "I know a guy that had a bunch of PC go balooey with the last seventeen viruses, and Wintel lost another one."

Go make up your own thread about beating down Apple because Apple doesn't produce the computer you want, and invite all your high school friends to join you. This thread is about MWSF rumors, not your pontificating on how dumb Apple is and how smart you are.


....keep drinking the kool-aid. Your response to my posts leads me to believe that you have some emotional investment in your computer. Thats always bad for critcal thinking. The world is anecdotal, btw. Nothing is anything but perception. Get over it.

BTW, QE speeds up the UI. So any usage for any purpose benefits, especially the G3 users that already succesfully sued Apple for not "fully supporting their machines" due to AltiVec optimizations. I'm not sure there couldn't be another suit filed over QE.

I used the anecdote to expose a weakness in Apple's business practises. The whole reason many businesses and educational institutions shy away from desktop Macs is the AIO proprietary form factor vs. the ubiquitous commodity PC mini-tower. There is no reason for there not to be ONE FREAKING MAC that has space for two optical drives (unless you count the pevious generation MDD still for sale). We had to bitch for years over that one, then Apple took it away with the G5. I guess I'm just telling Apple how much smarter I am than they are again. Sorry.

Apple's laptops are more successful because ALL laptops share the same problem with proprietary hardware. Apple plays on a even footing in that market and they fare very well. If they can fare well in that market on even footing, why shouldn't they fare equally well in a Consumer Mini Tower market? Wouldn't you like to see the same growth in their desktop line as they have seen in their laptop line? They have 4 laptop form factors. 3 desktop form factors. There is room for one more desktop, a mini tower.

As a shareholder and end user such growth would benefit me in two ways. It would add more value to my stock and spur more investment from developers into the Mac software market.

I'm one of Apple's good customers. I most likely will never abandon them. But I also have several Linux/WIN2K/XP boxes sitting around too. And I know Apple isn't that far ahead of the game.

In fact, after getting my T3 I have become more aware of how Apple is falling behind in BlueTooth software. It is a shame that it is so simple to share a network connection over bluetooth on a PC, but impossible unless you want to dig into the CLI and start routing ports in Mac OS X. Hell, you can't even use a BT headset with a Mac yet.

Does me voicing my frustration over the lack of meaningful BT support make me a know-it-all Apple basher? Or am I just another frustrated Apple customer expressing his opinion? How does Apple know what its customers want if we don't voice our opinions?

So, sorry to bruise your ego by suggesting Apple build a consumer tower.:smokey:

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Eugene
No, PCs are still not true commodity items. To be a commodity, the item should be maintenance free, cheap and replaceable on a whim.


iPods are commodity items. They are one piece. Everything you need comes in the box. When the iPod dies outside of the warranty period, you replace it instead of repairing it. The original iPod was the geek edition...*music and computer* geeks are going to have more music than anybody. Now Apple's bringing out the iPod for the masses. Would a SFF Mac be for the masses or do several Mac products already satisfy this segment? eMac, iMac, iBook, PowerBook?


Good idea.


...wait, hold on. A freaking $500 iPod is a commodity item, but a computer is not "replaceable on a whim" at $199.

MMmmmm. Ok.

Sorry, you make a poor argument.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mooseman
...wait, hold on. A freaking $500 iPod is a commodity item, but a computer is not "replaceable on a whim" at $199.

MMmmmm. Ok.

Sorry, you make a poor argument.
Did you intentionally glaze over the rest of my post where I outline the fact that price is not the prime consideration for what is a commodity and what isn't?

The iPod is more of a commodity than the $199 WalMart PC, and thus more people are buying them. Also, the $500 iPod is merely the most expensive model. As I said, even as a commodity, the current iPod is the geek edition. How many of us have 40 GB of music? I have 15 GB and I already consider that quite a lot.

[Paul]

yeah really i mean a fridge is a commodity and they usually cost WAY more then $200

commodity != cheap
commodity = easy to use, don't usually have to troubleshoot, can be replaced easily without having to learn a complex system...

appliances and simple entertainment devices fall into these categories...

computers DO NOT (although they are getting close...)

the closest thing to a commodity PC would be a kiosk-type of computer that isn't usually terribly dynamic...

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Eugene
Did you intentionally glaze over the rest of my post where I outline the fact that price is not the prime consideration for what is a commodity and what isn't?

The iPod is more of a commodity than the $199 WalMart PC, and thus more people are buying them. Also, the $500 iPod is merely the most expensive model. As I said, even as a commodity, the current iPod is the geek edition. How many of us have 40 GB of music? I have 15 GB and I already consider that quite a lot.

...1) Maintenance Free. How is an iPod maintenance free? Ask the people filing the class action suit against Apple over batteries that need replacing how "tossable" an iPod should be for $299. And lets see, with my previous Gen iPod I had to upgrade the OS no less than 4 or 5 times. v1.3.1 is that last revision, I believe.

...2) Cheap. A $299 iPod is still what you can buy a new PC for. Thats the cheapest iPod they offer. I know, I've bought 2.

...3) Purchase on a whim. See above.

You STILL don't make a good argument.

And, there are a half dozen industry standard motherboard sizes. Extended ATX, ATX, Flex ATX, Micro ATX, Micro ITX. I think the new board you ae talking about is BTX being suggested by Intel with the BTX, microBTX, and picoBTX to repalce the ATX series. Regardless, those proprietary motherboards that Dell uses (made by the same companmy that makes Apple's) still offer PCI slots down to the $350 loss leaders. They still offer easily accessible chasis, and still offer industry standard HD cages, optical drive cages, etc.

If people want AIOs, then why don't super nifty machines like the Vaio W sell more? Its an awesome little machine and costs about the same as a mid-range iMac. Reason? The custoer PREFERS the mini-tower design.

The market speaks daily. Apple should be listening.

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Paul
yeah really i mean a fridge is a commodity and they usually cost WAY more then $200

commodity != cheap
commodity = easy to use, don't usually have to troubleshoot, can be replaced easily without having to learn a complex system...

appliances and simple entertainment devices fall into these categories...

computers DO NOT (although they are getting close...)

the closest thing to a commodity PC would be a kiosk-type of computer that isn't usually terribly dynamic...

...no, a refridgerator is not a commodity item. Commodity does not mean "easy to use and maintenace free."

...no commodity == same products widely available competing soley on price.

That is what a commodity market is. Multiple vendors selling the same item and competing on price. Oil commodities. Grain commodities. Gold commodities. Rutabega commodities.

Jesus Christ, am I the only person here that picked up an economics book?

[Gamblor]

Um, no, commodity, in the economic sense, has a pretty specific meaning. From here (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:nvPP_-RVS-cJ:www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Economics/Commodity_Prices.shtml+economics+commodity&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8):

The financial term commodity is defined as a physical substance, such as food, grains, a and metals, which is interchangeable with other product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through future contracts.

i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.

[...]

Like it or not, PCs are becoming more closed. Dells don't adhere to true ATX standards. UTX is coming, but that might fork things even further. Even enthusiast motherboards have fewer and fewer PCI slots to accomodate things like hefty video cards that would occupy the adjacent slot to an AGP slot anyway.

I'm not sure why you think this is important. PC Manufacturers have been making their own form factors for as long as there have been PCs. How is today any different?

The consumer is asking for a no-nonsense, low-maintenance box that they never have to open and comes with everything. They aren't specifically asking for a drab SFF cube-shaped Shuttle-esque Mac.

And your source for this is...?

Nevermind.

Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.

[@homenow]

Man it is getting heated in here. I think that both sides have valid points. The way I see it is that if Apple were doing everything right then they would have better market share than they currently do. The have good laptops, good pro desktops, and one of the best (if underpowered) AIO computers on the market. I think that we can all agree on that. However if Apple is going to grow market share then they need to move into new markets that they can't reach with their current offerings. This means a new form factor, be it a thin client backed by a blade server or a mini-tower/Cube/pizzabox or whatever computer that appeals to people who are not buying Macs due to what is offered in their price range. Yes there are other concerns such as compatability, which should be delt with in software (Works should be upgraded to recognize Word files ASAP after Microsoft comes out with a new version, and bring back MacLink as shipping software with all CPU's) not hardware. Educating potential customers would help, but it is not easy to do when all the "geeks" at the computer store know and own PC's and steer customers away from the Mac platform. Advertising could be better, especially when it comes to talking about entry prices on current Apple offerings. They could help this out by giving retailers the ability to actually have sale prices on Macs instead of locking them into Apples pricing structure.

As for the comments on graphics cards, I own a Cube and one of the main considerations in its purchase was the AGP slot for the GPU. Apple raised the bar for hardware with Quartz Extream, who is to say they wont do it again next year to support only GPU's with 64 or 128 MB of memory? Yes, this is an upgrade I plan on doing to my Cube, and soon (as well as a CPU upgrade to extend the life of the Cube for home use). Another consideration was the freedom of an external monitor. I have a 15" LCD now because that is all I could afford at the time. I plan on getting something larger in the near future as well. I like having that choice, and as a consumer that does come into my buying decisions, and I don't really consider myself a "geek".

[Paul]

Originally posted by mooseman
That is what a commodity market is. Multiple vendors selling the same item and competing on price. Oil commodities. Grain commodities. Gold commodities. Rutabega commodities.

well there is your problem... EVERY market competes based on price...

but the thing about the PC market is that features come into play as well... not every maker has the same PC... (apple of course is not even in the same league based on the fact that it is not running "the standard" windows....)

no way you can call a cheap PC a commodity

mp3 players on the other hand are MUCH closer-regardless of the price...

i still stick with my post even if it doesn't adhere to a strict economic definition of a commodity (and i have taken 2 semesters of econ so far, macro and micro principles... just not really thinking in those terms right now)

and generally appliances ARE commodities... they are built to serve a small amount of functions and compete with each other on PRICE

and a fridge would fit into that category... at least the cheap ones...



oh and forget everything I just said... I agree with Gamblor...

but I'm still right ;)

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Guys, at this point I think it's obvious that we're just retracking ground that's already been covered. I'd say just call it a draw, because nothing new is going to be covered here, and I don't think either side is going to give an inch.

Fair enough, but that means that you lose and I win :p :p :lol:

Kidding. I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back. I can see your argument and I don't think it's not without merit in some areas :)

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Gamblor
[B]Um, no, commodity, in the economic sense, has a pretty specific meaning.

i.e. something which typically doesn't have a brand associated with it. appliances and simple entertainment devices most definitely do NOT fall into this category... and neither do computers or iPods, for that matter. Since nobody is really using the term "commodity" in its true sense, but instead putting their own spin on it, I'd suggest just dropping the subject altogether.

...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.

The computer market has come to fit "commodity" better than just about any other non "raw material" market out there.

So, grant me a little leeway and be done with all this pedantry. (j/k) ;)

:)

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mooseman
...well, honestly the reason most analysts call the computer market a "commodity" market is because the parts used to create them do basically fit the above description. Most people have no idea who made the motherboard, chipset, usb controller, firewire controller, etc. inside their machine. Computer vendors nowadays have become "assemblers" of "commodity" parts. Those parts can be interchanged. They generally are brandless. You can basically build a "generic" PC out of "generic" parts yourself.
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.

On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.

Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.

I said: As low-end PCs become even more like commdity hardware than ever before they will become even more closed.
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.

A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.

[LudwigVan]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=1936046971&f=3126079281&m=529008865

So I point my browser to this site, then go up one level in the board hierarchy (to General Discussion (http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=1936046971&f=3126079281)), and what do I see? The next latest post in this group is from late October. The forums there appear to be on life support.

I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.

But I could be wrong...

[Gamblor]

I do agree with you on quite a bit of what you've said, but it is my belief that it's not the hardware, but software and general miseducation that is holding Apple back.

Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.

I firmly believe that if Apple had hardware that was price/performance competitive, even limiting it to the models/form factors they've got now, they'd probably have double their marketshare. I point to the G5s as evidence. Until November when the dual 1.8GHz machine was introduced, the only machine that really competed on a price/performance basis was the top end machine, and by all accounts that machine sold more than both of its siblings combined. They had a grand total of ONE machine that truely competed with PC offerings at a similar price for half the quarter, and two machines that can compete for the remainder. It's looking like they'll double their marketshare for the quarter based on the strength of those two machines alone. Is it really that outlandish to think that they could get a big boost in sales simply by having competitive hardware across the board?

As far as the CSHB goes, Apple has had machine like it before in the form of LCs, the IIsi, and various Centris & Quadra machines. Many of those machines were best sellers for Apple, and they existed at a time when they competed directly with AIOs that Apple offered (like the Color Classic). Why can't they do it again? It all comes down to offering the consumer a reasonable number of choices. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Why can't it be both? You believe software is a bigger problem, that's fine, but why does that exclude Apple's inability to provide competitive hardware across the line? I just don't see why it has to be an either or proposition.

I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing™ . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one? :)

[Gamblor]

Well, if you'd let me get in the last pithy reply... :p

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by LudwigVan
I'd say the Michael who posted this bit of "inside info" may be fishing for some hits.

But I could be wrong...

As I stated at the top, I don't remember this site producing rumors of any kind in the past. Your hypothesis may be correct. Nonetheless, this thread seams to have taken on a life of its own. Maybe we need a title change...

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
Well, if you'd let me get in the last pithy reply... :p

It's all yours :lol: :p

[jade]

Originally posted by HOM
I know that you firmly believe that. I firmly believe that hardware plays almost no role in it. I think that offering the CSHB would cannibalize PowerMac sales. That would be A Bad Thing™ . I thought we agreed to disagree on this one? :)

Actually there is a really easy way to keep the cshb from cannablizing powermac sales: make it white not aluminum.

ibook g4 vs powerbook g4....do you think this wil kill powerbook slaes? no way... it just might hurt the models with combo drives. but for those that money is no object they will pick the product with the most cachet. The others shop for price.

A CHSB will not kill powermac sales because there will be more than enough new customers coming in to make up for the handful that jump to the cheaper box. A low price gets people in the door.

I sell computers too, and in my experience this is what happens. Person wants a computer. I show them an imac/emac. They say...I already have a screen...they look at g5/g4.....well starting at 1299 I can get a combo drive...but for $999 I can get an HP with DVD+R and use my monitor. Which product wins. All-in-ones are great for people who do not have a computer. But we are at the point where a good 60% of people already have one and are looking for upgrades.

But more importantly when it comes time to fix the computer it takes a lot more work to find someone to service a complicated imac,,,,than a tower. Even the most in experiences pc tech can figure out how to install ram or a cdin a tower...but give that guy an imac and he will probablly throw it out the window...and that means the imac cstomer will have to send their computer for apple for a few weeks for repair. With an imac, when it goes down you replace the whole thing,.....and for lots of people (even non geeks) that seems annoying and wasteful. (Seeing that CRTs can last 800 years and LCDs will stand up to 7 or so.)



I want an OS X computer between $799-1599 where I can pick my own screen... I would sell lots and lots of them!!!!

So let's forget about exisint apple users and look at potential new apple users.........they buy towers! And not $2000 ones. That is why apple is missing a huge chunk of the market.


For a lot of people once they find out they can use word on a mac....they are minimally concerned with compatability, but it is hard to crosss that hurdle when you have already been eliminated because of price/performance.

(in the pc world computers $1299 and up sstart with 120gb hard drives........)

[HOM]

Did you read this thread at all? Gamblor and I have pretty been over every possible point at least twice. I'm not going to respond anymore because frankly it's boring. Jade to read what I would have written in response reread this thread. Enjoy!

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Eugene
The parts are not the sum of the whole. You cannot expect the average customer to build a generic PC. You cannot easily jump into the PC market as a small OEM.

On the other hand, the portal music player market is saturated with little names like Archos, iRiver, Rio, DigitalWay, Frontier, Pogo, etc.

Small PC OEMs are having a bear of a time against Dell, HP and others. The poster Northgate works for Northgate, perhaps he can shed some light on the ups/downs of the OEM PC industry. Besides, I said PCs were becoming even more of a commodity than before, but you just skewed my comments to fit your reply.

I said:
As there is little difference between the major brands now, what do you think they are going to do to differentiate themselves and sell their goods? They are going to branch out to fill the niches. They're going to want to sell you accessories catered to work best with their own products.

A product has to be useful in order to be a commodity. In the end, an Apple iPod is more useful than a WalMart PC.


...I think you are missing some key information. Here is why. In my time, I've seen 3 custom box builders rise from small independents to large corporations; Compaq, Gateway, and Dell. It is one of the reasons IBM decided to get out the PC market, its a commodity market.

Not to mention there are literally tens of thousands of mom and pop stores around the country building custom PCs. And, they actually have an advantage over the big companies because they move to market faster with hardware. The fastest mobo with the newest technologies are not OEM parts, they are custom market boards from Tyan, Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, Shuttle, etc. And they only need a few of the newest chips to sell, they don't have to wait for 100,000 to be in inventory before they start moving boxes out the door. How can they compete? The parts are commodity items.

Besides that, look at comapnies like AlienWare (which was being sold in BestBuy) and Falcon that do very well building custom PCs. Hell, AlienWare was using Chieftec off the shelf cases. How can they all compete? Becasue the parts are commodity items.

And, BTW, yes the average computer user could easily build a custom box themselves. If they can assemble a vacuum cleaner from Wal-Mart they can put together a PC. It requires putting in a couple dozen screws and plugging in a 8 or 9 cables. Its not exactly rocket science. I have more faith in the avergae Joe than you, I guess.:D

[wizard69]

This is all well and good but why would someone be running Autocad (or any professional 3D app for that matter) on a consumer grade All In One? Lets face it Apple has the G5 towers to serve the needs of the professionals.

On the other hand this does not mean that I'm happy about Apples tendency to put GPU's into their consumer machines that are three or more revisions old. The nature of the machines wether IMac or Headless box points to a GPU integrated onto the logic board. The trick is to install a GPU and the complementing memory that is reasonably state of the art when the machine hits the market. How we get Apple to do this is an interesting question.

Apple has a good rep for building machine that are durable and last for a while. Part of that comes the highly integrated mother boards they produce. It is a reasonable trade off for the All in One market and the small form factor market to have the GPU soldered in.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by Gamblor
There are a few other apps that benefit from 3D accelleration, as well. On the PC side, AutoCAD & ESRI's 3D Analyst are two examples that immediately come to mind. Depending on how complex the data is, a high end consumer 3D card may provide a significant boost in performance over what would be built in to the motherboard in an AIO. There are other apps, too, that have 3D modules that would benefit from a "game" card-- IDL & MathCAD type programs come to mind.

The use of these cards is not all limited to games and 3D content creation. There are a lot of other apps that would benefit as well.

[vinney57]

Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours ensuring that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity.

[mooseman]

Originally posted by vinney57
Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours ensuring that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity.

....it should read "Mr. Jobs spends most of his waking hours fooling everyone into believing that the Apple brand never ever becomes associated with anything that could be described as a commodity."


Apple uses all the same parts that Dell uses. Even the same motherboard manufacturer. Hell, Apple doesn't even build most of its products, they are outsourced to Taiwan to companies like Quanta that build other brands too.

Apple pretty much abandoned its ambition to create new standards in hardware. They abandon Nubus, SCSI, and their non-standrad RAM requirements. Why? Cuz commodity parts are cheaper, naturally, even if they aren't technically superior.

Apple innovates in software, not hardware (excepting of course FireWire and WiFi tech which they single handedly petitioned the FCC for the opening of the spectrum to public use).

Their software kicks ass, always has. Its 100% of Apple's worth. Their hardware is built from the same parts everyone else uses. I hope they eventually broaden the market for their software. Cocoa rocks. Its a super powerful RAD kit. All their iApps are top notch. Even Apple themselves have admitted that they are moving more towards being a software centered company.

[Mike Eggleston]

Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Gamblor, I wouldn't listen to the Apple 'grid' analites. The 'grid' is history. As anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years would know. (Gosh, who'd a thunk Apple would have 3, rather than 2(!) Powerbooks in their Powerbook line!? It's SO confusing! Apple shouldn't have the affordable 12inch Powerbook because it affects sales of the 17 inch Powerbook and hampers Apple's ability to make itself into a smaller niche. Or tower under 1K? Or G4 and G5 towers just to confuse Apple buyers. Or the pending switch to a 'two-tier' iPod range? Or 12inch and 14 inch iBook screen sizes...or...gasp, 3(!!!) screen sizes for your iMac 2? Why add a 20 inch screen? It would only cause confusion and cost too much...or why do a 17 inch iMac(eMac) because it would break somebody's wrist from carrying it around all day... Or better still, why not have two overlapping lines of overpriced AIOs, eh? (iMac/eMac...) Because that would make more sense than offering a little bit of choice ie a range of cheap consumer towers to complement a cheap range of consumer AIOs? And there's always the danger that pro users might confuse the X-serve and PowerMac range...or Wintel users might confuse Apple's Mac OS with their new Unix OS...or the iPod with a PDA...)

I'm sorry folks. I can't help speaking crap. ;)

Ok, minor history lesson here folks. Everyone here remembers the days where Amelio had close to 20 + different products, and you couldn't distinguish between any of them?? Could you tell the difference between the PowerMac 8600 or 9600 from the title?? Hell no.

Now, I think what we are talking about is an extension of the grid. In its heart, we still have the main grid, plus a couple of newcomers. We still have the iMac and the iBook. We have the PowerMac and the PowerBook. We also now have the eMac for Education, and the Xserve for our server needs.

However, each one has different configurations. Would you be able to tell the difference between the 14" iBook versus the 12.1" PowerBook? Yes. Why? Not because of the size, but because of the name. That is what Apple created when they did that grid; it built name recognition. Ask anyone if they know what an iMac is. I garantee that the answer is "Yes." Love it or hate it, they still know WHAT it is.

Sorry, back to point. I think that the main debate on how to increase market share is actually a little combination of both. We are still fighting the issue with the Myth. I know that I am right now with some people in my work. "Can your Mac actually read my Excel document??" "Can you connect to our server??" etc etc etc. Apple needs to do a better job at educating the public. Commercial, print, and radio ads are needed. A strong presence in the public's eye will help in these regards.

Then you have the whole Price/Performance issue. Again, Apple needs to educate, as well as adapt. A 1k Tower, they have to enter into this area. As well as make some of their consumer products cheaper. Bring the iBook back below 1k, preferably to the $899 mark. iMac needs to be around $999 including SuperDrive. Powerbook is actually right where it needs to be.

Remember, choice and different configurations does not equal confusion. Confusion happens when you have now way to distinguish one product from the other. Oh, one other final test for you guys. Don't use Google to find this out, either. Which is the better PC: The Dell Dimension 8300 or the Gateway 510X??

See my point? ;)

[cubist]

I want to make one minor point, as a Cube owner. I bought the Cube, not because it was cheap (it wasn't), not because it was expandable (it's kind of expandable, but not much), not because it was silent (I have a hearing loss anyway), not because I could use any monitor (altho I liked that), but because it was small.

I haven't bought a PowerMac, not because it's too expensive, not because it only has one optical drive, not because 64-bit OSs are not available yet, or anything like that, but simply because it's too big.

Really, $1799 isn't too much money for a good computer. Refurbs are available for as little as $1399. But the tower is enormous! And if you get a single processor, a lot of that space is empty, permanently wasted, because the machine is not upgradable.

But as mentioned earlier, I'm a geek, I have no idea what would sell or not. Amorph pointed out in another thread that the top-selling Mac right now is the 17" iMac - it's outselling the G5, even with its antique G4 processor.

[pscates]

Horsepower/speed is overrated.

I'd wager a vital organ or two that 96% of the members here at AI - myself included - would be forever MORE than served by a 1GHz G4.

We just like to talk and pretend otherwise.

;)

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by pscates
Horsepower/speed is overrated.
I'd wager a vital organ or two that 96% of the members here at AI - myself included - would be forever MORE than served by a 1GHz G4.
Maybe so, but if you've ever worked in the publishing biz, having a computer that runs faster PhotoShop filters, burns CD-Rs faster, and lets you deal with all your 500MB project files, you pay for it! Hence the best-selling status of the dual 2GHz G5.

Now if only Apple could speed up Mac OS X Finder so that it's as responsive as Mac OS 9, then I'd switch, but Quark 4 won't like it...
whoops, wrong thread!

[Gamblor]

This is all well and good but why would someone be running Autocad (or any professional 3D app for that matter) on a consumer grade All In One? Lets face it Apple has the G5 towers to serve the needs of the professionals.

I think you'd be surprised. At one of the companies I work for, in an office with 300 people, I know at least a dozen people who occasionally use Autocad who's workstations are Pentium III machines. Not everyone who uses autocad is a balls-to-the-wall CAD operator. Same thing for ESRI products-- at that same company, there are probably at least two dozen people who've got a use for ArcInfo & ArcMap, but their desktop machines are pretty low end machines by today's standards. A mid-market machine with upgradable video would serve these people well.

[pscates]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx Maybe so, but if you've ever worked in the publishing biz, having a computer that runs faster PhotoShop filters, burns CD-Rs faster, and lets you deal with all your 500MB project files, you pay for it! Hence the best-selling status of the dual 2GHz G5.

I DO work in the "publishing biz", mister. ;)

And I'm more than aware of all the reasons you cite.

I'm speaking more on a individual level, at-home kinda stuff.

Yes, at work - where I'm working on large, high-res Photoshop stuff, doing magazine covers at 9x12 with 10 or so layers, effects, etc. a dual 2GHz G5 would indeed be pretty nifty.

Here at home, surfing, e-mailing, writing, iTunes, Illustrator, low-res RGB Photoshop stuff, iApps, etc.? It would be a bit of ridiculous, space-wasting overkill.

That's all I'm saying.

I'd LOVE to have a G5 at work...it makes sense there!

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Ok, minor history lesson here folks. Everyone here remembers the days where Amelio had close to 20 + different products, and you couldn't distinguish between any of them?? Could you tell the difference between the PowerMac 8600 or 9600 from the title?? Hell no.
s/Amelio/Spindler/

Amelio was the one that actually made Jobs' return possible, with the acquisition of NeXT. It was Amelio who axed the Performa line among many other products...like the Newton.

[HOM]

Originally posted by Eugene
s/Amelio/Spindler/

Amelio was the one that actually made Jobs' return possible, with the acquisition of NeXT. It was Amelio who axed the Performa line among many other products...like the Newton.

Amelio spun off the Newton devision as Newton Inc and started to show a profit. When Jobs came back he brought it back under the Apple name then proceeded to kill it off and promise that there would be a Mac based solution to replace it.

[Spunkmeyer]

Originally posted by pscates
I'm speaking more on a individual level, at-home kinda stuff.

Yes, at work - where I'm working on large, high-res Photoshop stuff, doing magazine covers at 9x12 with 10 or so layers, effects, etc. a dual 2GHz G5 would indeed be pretty nifty.

Here at home, surfing, e-mailing, writing, iTunes, Illustrator, low-res RGB Photoshop stuff, iApps, etc.? It would be a bit of ridiculous, space-wasting overkill.

That's all I'm saying.

I'd LOVE to have a G5 at work...it makes sense there!

I am looking to get a G5 in the next few months for home... once VPC is updated to work with it. I'm an architect, and we use AutoCAD at my office. But trying to run ACAD in VPC on my G4 is painful.

Although it's overkill for Safari, VPC is one area where having the G5 would make perfect sense. It makes a lot more sense than breaking down and buying a PC -- I don't want to have 2 machines sucking up power and space in my home office.

[satchmo]

This debate on whether a headless mac is needed or not will go on for months long after MWSF (if it doesn't show up there).

I do think there is a niche market for one. Not sure if it's big enough to justify development and possibly throw the Mac product line all out of whack. But certainly it would turn some PC heads, for sure.

Now I'm not a techie, but today I installed an internal CDR-W into my old Sawtooth G4 tower and now have a fast 52x burner. I must say that having the ability to breathe new life into an old machine is a great. Doing that to a smaller affordable headless mac would have been just as easy to do.
Something I couldn't do with the G5 towers (because I can't afford one) or my iMac AIO since it's not expandable.

[HOM]

Originally posted by satchmo
Something I couldn't do with the G5 towers (because I can't afford one) or my iMac AIO since it's not expandable.

This is a common misconception. Expandable does not equal upgradable. If you had an iMac that was made after they went to the slot loading drive you could attach a firewire burner to your iMac to breath as much new life in it as you did your Sawtooth. For non-tekies this is a better solution because it requires no tinkering with the internals of the computer and most likely requires no software either.

[satchmo]

Originally posted by HOM
This is a common misconception. Expandable does not equal upgradable. If you had an iMac that was made after they went to the slot loading drive you could attach a firewire burner to your iMac to breath as much new life in it as you did your Sawtooth. For non-tekies this is a better solution because it requires no tinkering with the internals of the computer and most likely requires no software either.

Well yes, mostly all computers are upgradable.

It's just much simpler to crack open a tower than an iMac. Plus, what's the beauty of an AIO when you've got a bunch of peripherals hanging off of it.:)

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Spunkmeyer
I am looking to get a G5 in the next few months for home... once VPC is updated to work with it. I'm an architect, and we use AutoCAD at my office. But trying to run ACAD in VPC on my G4 is painful.

Although it's overkill for Safari, VPC is one area where having the G5 would make perfect sense. It makes a lot more sense than breaking down and buying a PC -- I don't want to have 2 machines sucking up power and space in my home office.


...it'd be cheaper to buy a cheap PC mini tower and a KVM switch, that is if your time is money. The PC can sleep when you aren't using it. You can even find a really cheap Shuttle XPC form factor and hide it somewhere out of sight. It'll be 10x faster than using VPC.

RDC connection to a hidden networked PC works well enough for me for office duty, but the slight lag would be a bitch trying to do CAD.

Seriously. Cheap PC hidden under your desk so no one knows your dirty little secret. ;)

[Spunkmeyer]

Originally posted by mooseman
...it'd be cheaper to buy a cheap PC mini tower and a KVM switch, that is if your time is money. The PC can sleep when you aren't using it. You can even find a really cheap Shuttle XPC form factor and hide it somewhere out of sight. It'll be 10x faster than using VPC.

Good points in your post. Yeah, I considered going the shuttle/kvm route a little while ago, but when I price out the kvm switch, pc, and graphics card that would be required to hook up to my existing DVI monitor, it doesn't make financial sense versus selling my G4 and going with a G5.

My main concerns -- even over time -- is power consumption and space. I'm within walking distance of my office, so if my deadline is that pressing, I can go over there and work if necessary.

Besides, the G5 means I'd be good for another few years before having to revisit the computer upgrade situation. I'd still be stuck with the aging G4/450 if I bought a PC! :lol:

[mooseman]

Originally posted by Spunkmeyer
I'd still be stuck with the aging G4/450 if I bought a PC! :lol:

...no need to say anything further. Dual G5 it is! :lol:

[wizard69]

I truely use to believe that as I had been ruuning my Linux machine for a long time on a 500MHz celeron. Then a upgrade was done a while back, frankly have been kicking my self for waiting so long.

The reality is that as I'vebecome more acustomed to what a real computer can do for a person the more I crave the responsivness that only a truely fast machine can provide. Thus my craving for a G5. Well that and OS/X without which the hardware would be utterly useless.

Hopefully the day will come when I cna afford the machine. The only good thing about the forced wait is that they just keep getting faster.

Thanks
dave



Originally posted by pscates
Horsepower/speed is overrated.

I'd wager a vital organ or two that 96% of the members here at AI - myself included - would be forever MORE than served by a 1GHz G4.

We just like to talk and pretend otherwise.

;)

[OverToasty]

Originally posted by pscates
Horsepower/speed is overrated.

I'd wager a vital organ or two that 96% of the members here at AI - myself included - would be forever MORE than served by a 1GHz G4.

We just like to talk and pretend otherwise.

;)

640K oughta be enough for anybody!

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Horsepower/speed is overrated.

No it's not.

Lemon Bon Bon

[HOM]

Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
No it's not.

Lemon Bon Bon

Yup, it sure is. :)

[mattyj]

Originally posted by HOM
Yup, it sure is. :)

:no:

[pscates]

Ooh, looks like I hit a sensitive spot. Sissies. :D

[shawk]

If you're paid by the hour, a slower computer is better.

[spotcatbug]

Originally posted by shawk
If you're paid by the hour, a slower computer is better. Regardless, you'll still want a PC to maximize your pay per finished job.:D

[Ompus]

I completely agree that speed is over-rated...for example, I could go with an $867.00 ABS Awesome 2300 with:

- Athlon XP 2600 Barton 333 FSB
- 512 MB DDR 400 RAM
- 160 GB 7200RPM SATA drive
- Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE 8X AGP Video Card
- 16X DVD-ROM/48 X CD-ROM
- 4X DVD+/RW Recorder
- On Board 10/100 Ethernet
- On Board Sound

But I'd much rather spend the extra $432.00 on Apple's entry level, $1,299.00 G4 tower with:

-Single 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 w/ 1MB L3 cache
-256MB DDR333 SDRAM
-80GB Ultra ATA drive
-Combo-Drive
-ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 4X AGP Video Card
-On Board 10/100/1000 Ethernet
-On Board Sound

The 1 Ghz, $1099 eMac isn't a bad solution, but then I'd have to find a place for my 19" monitor. Ditto the 1 Ghz, $1299.00, 15" iMac.

To bring this back to MWSF, I'll be buying a new dektop January 6, 2004. With any luck, I'll be back to Mac after a 2 year hiatus. More likely, the marketing geniuses at Apple will ensure I settle for another cheap PC.

[Clive]

Originally posted by shawk
If you're paid by the hour, a slower computer is better.

Don't be stupid. People will be wondering why it took you so long!?

Faster is better because you can charge more for getting more done in that hour.


-- Clive

[Rhumgod]

Originally posted by Clive
Faster is better because you can charge more for getting more done in that hour.

And you won't have the customer sitting over your shoulder, breathing down your neck when the project is not done, is falling behind schedule and costing them more to reschedule events that rely on your part of the project. Yes, speed is good!

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Ompus
To bring this back to MWSF, I'll be buying a new dektop January 6, 2004. With any luck, I'll be back to Mac after a 2 year hiatus. More likely, the marketing geniuses at Apple will ensure I settle for another cheap PC.

One thing i always think about when I hear these stories is software. For me at least the price of software was one big thing holding me back from moving up from my beige OS9 machine to alu-coated OSX. I probably droped $1500 on new software. I figure this is a big concern for switchers as well. A few hundred bucks difference in prices between CPUs is really not the big problem.

[Ompus]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
One thing i always think about when I hear these stories is software. For me at least the price of software was one big thing holding me back from moving up from my beige OS9 machine to alu-coated OSX. I probably droped $1500 on new software. I figure this is a big concern for switchers as well. A few hundred bucks difference in prices between CPUs is really not the big problem.

You're right, the slapped together PC is faster, cheaper AND I wouldn't have to spend money buying an OSX version of Microsoft Office. Still...I'd be willing to pony up if Apple decided to sell a non-AIO for $999.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
How about doubling sales? If the rumor of >500k Powermacs sold is true that means about 300k sold for Q1 04, since they sold about 220k in Q4 03. in Q1 03, they sold 158k, so they'd be at damn near doubling their sales over the year ago quarter for the Powermacs.

I think there's going to be plenty of room to start diffrentiating their desktop offerings, once the G5 gets rolled out across the entire line.
206K in 04Q1.

Oopsies!

And, told you so!

Oh look! Right around 800K units sold this quarter! Magical!

expanding the product line right now would just slice up that 800K number a few more ways, not add to it. Apple has to convince people to buy their CORE offerings before making new niche offerings.

[Flounder]

hmmmm, so you like tooting your own horn so much that the two other threads weren't enough, you had to dig up a thread that died two weeks ago?
Jeez..... :no:

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Flounder
hmmmm, so you like tooting your own horn so much that the two other threads weren't enough, you had to dig up a thread that died two weeks ago?
Jeez..... :no:
Yes, because I was called out on it. So I'm calling them out on it now. How far away does 5M Macs a year sound now? Tooot tooooot!

Besides, in this thread, I'm arguing against adding more Mac product lines into the mix whereas in the others I'm just laying down the facts.

[kraig911]

Originally posted by mooseman
...wait, hold on. A freaking $500 iPod is a commodity item, but a computer is not "replaceable on a whim" at $199.

MMmmmm. Ok.

Sorry, you make a poor argument.

Mooseman dude I used to service those imacs, none of them had a logic board replaced, they have another card that latchs on to the logic board, the cost is about 75 as i remember for the parts usually.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by cubist
I want to make one minor point, as a Cube owner. I bought the Cube, not because it was cheap (it wasn't), not because it was expandable (it's kind of expandable, but not much), not because it was silent (I have a hearing loss anyway), not because I could use any monitor (altho I liked that), but because it was small.I agree...

Check out my thoughts in Half-Depth cases for new Macs (?) (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23359)

[Gamblor]

206K in 04Q1.

Oopsies!

Here-- highlighted for clarity:

If the rumor of >500k Powermacs sold is true that means about 300k sold for Q1 04, since they sold about 220k in Q4 03. in Q1 03, they sold 158k, so they'd be at damn near doubling their sales over the year ago quarter for the Powermacs.

Looks like the rumor wasn't true, right, Eugene? But if it makes you feel better, you were right, and I was wrong, on this mostly irrelevant side issue...

And, told you so!

Can't you just feel the schadenfreude?

Yes, because I was called out on it. So I'm calling them out on it now. How far away does 5M Macs a year sound now? Tooot tooooot!

Let me get this straight, Eugene-- you're actually HAPPY Apple's not in a position to expand their desktop offerings?

Besides, in this thread, I'm arguing against adding more Mac product lines into the mix whereas in the others I'm just laying down the facts.

Yeah, look at what happened with the laptops. Last year, they introduced two new laptop models, and as a direct result, they lost money, just like last year. Oh, wait, unlike in the fall of 2002 when they only had one Powerbook model, not only did they sell damn near twice as many units, and their revenue was up 70%-- but they managed to make a $63 million profit, as well! So much for expanding lines eating into profits. :no:

[Eugene]

Let me get this straight, Eugene-- you're actually HAPPY Apple's not in a position to expand their desktop offerings?
No, I'm happy they don't listen to the geek minority who selfishly demand something they want, but nobody else really cares for. If Apple did as so many here have suggested and developed the Cube 2.0, where do you think it would be this quarter financially?

And you're trying to compare the expansion of the PowerBook line-up with bigger and smaller screens to creating an entirely new product family? Please...

Accept the fact that a headless iMac or mini-Power Mac currently has no place in the line-up and move on.

[KANE]

I smell a catfight...

[Gamblor]

If Apple did as so many here have suggested and developed the Cube 2.0, where do you think it would be this quarter financially?

Given that an expanded Powerbook line didn't adversely effect their bottom line, I have no reason to believe cheaper G5 machines between $1k - $2k would, either.

And you're trying to compare the expansion of the PowerBook line-up with bigger and smaller screens to creating an entirely new product family? Please...

Right-- because it'd be nearly the same thing. Think about it-- what did Apple have to design for the 12" & 17" Powerbooks? New motherboards, and new enclosures. What would they have to redesign for a "Cube 2.0"? New motherboards & new enclosures... Seems like a fair comparison to me.


Accept the fact that a headless iMac or mini-Power Mac currently has no place in the line-up and move on.

Accept the fact that that ain't gonna happen, and move on yourself. There's a REASON this thread died two weeks ago, Eugene...

[KANE]

*Meaw*

[Eugene]

Cheaper G5s, between $1000 and $2000. You mean like the low-end G5 already occupies...and the G5 iMac when it'll be released?

I'm sure Apple could release such a G5, if they axe the iMac, but is that what you really want?

*or*

They could make a headless iMac with a G4 while all the other desktops move on to the G5. That's obviously not what you want.

*or*

Apple gets more economical on volume and shrinks the current Power Mac tower down to a respectable mini-tower size. This is still targetting the same audience as before, except it's perhaps slightly cheaper by virtue of time passed. They then release a full-tower with 5 expansion slot. ECC support, two 5.25" bays and two hot swap 3.5" bays (+two internal)...a 'workstation' with an Xsomething name. Xstation?

The latter two options aren't shoehorning a prosumer product in between. In one you're getting a bargain-bin Mac with yesteryear's tech. In the other, you're creating a true professional workstation for those who demand it. In both the dollar spectrum is widened.

The only real feasible option, IMO, is the last one. The Power Mac G5, as an all new replacement for the Power Mac G4 costs a lot to manufacture. There's no way in hell Apple will just continue to leave all that empty space inside. Those big-ass heatsinks and cooling zones? They can be replaced by smaller heatsinks with fans that blow directly onto them. The current Power Mac G5 could be about 4 inches shorter, at least.

[KANE]

*Hiss*