Apple STILL doesn't get it!
What don't they get?
1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. Yes, I know the iMac is BACK to where it started. However, the base G4 tower is back UP to its previous $1699 price. Yes, it has more power, but it is still the lowest priced tower Apple offers, which leads to:
2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. There are tons of folks who just do not want an all in one machine. There is no consumer level upgradeable tower available for $1299, or the sweet spot of $999. Market share will NOT grow simply because of the iMac or even the eMac. Apple is foolishly ignoring a large market, the largest actually.
3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now.
4. The product line is getting muddled, and low end machines are way behind in system speed. The iMac and eMac should have 133 mhz system bus as fast as possible, and no machine should be sold with less than 256 Mb RAM. There should only be 2 models of the eMac, and 2, 3 at most, of the iMac. The eMac's name should be changed to iMac CRT.
5. The tilt and swivel stand should be standard on all eMacs. I mean, comeon, a 17 inch monitor without a stand? An extra $60 for one-please.
6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades).
OK, Flame on. Or agree. Or ignore(no, don't do that!)............................................ .....
1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. Yes, I know the iMac is BACK to where it started. However, the base G4 tower is back UP to its previous $1699 price. Yes, it has more power, but it is still the lowest priced tower Apple offers, which leads to:
2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. There are tons of folks who just do not want an all in one machine. There is no consumer level upgradeable tower available for $1299, or the sweet spot of $999. Market share will NOT grow simply because of the iMac or even the eMac. Apple is foolishly ignoring a large market, the largest actually.
3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now.
4. The product line is getting muddled, and low end machines are way behind in system speed. The iMac and eMac should have 133 mhz system bus as fast as possible, and no machine should be sold with less than 256 Mb RAM. There should only be 2 models of the eMac, and 2, 3 at most, of the iMac. The eMac's name should be changed to iMac CRT.
5. The tilt and swivel stand should be standard on all eMacs. I mean, comeon, a 17 inch monitor without a stand? An extra $60 for one-please.
6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades).
OK, Flame on. Or agree. Or ignore(no, don't do that!)............................................ .....
Comments
2. I disagree that there are "tons" of people for whom price is the biggest consideration, and who need PCI slots or swappable video cards. Most of these people would do just fine with an iMac. And Apple isn't targeting somebody willing to buy component parts and build their own $800 machine.
3. Pure number envy BS.... "somebody else's number is bigger, I'm so embarrassed." I had a friend who visited my home, saw my stereo setup and asked "How many watts?" When I told him my Rotel amp is 150 watts per channel, he said "Hmmpf, my Pioneer home theater amp is 450 watts and it only cost me $250." Same thinking. A dual 867 is much better than a Celeron 1.4 or whatever, despite the size of the numbers involved.
4. How is the product line getting "muddled?" We still have "good/better/best" in both Powermac and iMac lines, the same as we've had for a while. The addition of the eMac is hardly confusing -- any idiot can look at the iMac and the eMac and understand the difference. "iMac CRT" huh? Yick. I disagree. I do agree though that 256 mb ram should be minimum, and 512 should be minimum on Powermacs.
5. Adding something "standard" that not everybody would want, isn't a good idea as it just adds to the cost of the unit. I agree that a reasonably priced stand should be offered by Apple.
6. Black versions.... why not? I'd like it. Of course, that would muddle the product lines (see above)!
<strong>What don't they get?
1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. Yes, I know the iMac is BACK to where it started. However, the base G4 tower is back UP to its previous $1699 price. Yes, it has more power, but it is still the lowest priced tower Apple offers, which leads to:<hr></blockquote></strong>
Apple wants to futher separate the pro and consumer lines. By going all dual, or at least putting more powerful technologies into the pro line for a higher cost, they are making room to improve the performance and reduce the cost of the consumer machines.
[quote]<strong>2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. There are tons of folks who just do not want an all in one machine. There is no consumer level upgradeable tower available for $1299, or the sweet spot of $999. Market share will NOT grow simply because of the iMac or even the eMac. Apple is foolishly ignoring a large market, the largest actually.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Computers like the iMac and iBook are the reasons that people are switching. People find the awesome swivel capabilities, silent operation, and low form factor of these machines to be preferable. It's only Joe Gamer that wants the expandability of a tower, and since he can afford to pop in the latest and greatest video card every six months, why can't he afford to spend the extra money on more powerful components?
[quote]<strong>3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now.<hr></blockquote></strong>
You just contradicted yourself from your #1 and #2 posts.
[quote]<strong>4. The product line is getting muddled, and low end machines are way behind in system speed. The iMac and eMac should have 133 mhz system bus as fast as possible, and no machine should be sold with less than 256 Mb RAM. There should only be 2 models of the eMac, and 2, 3 at most, of the iMac. The eMac's name should be changed to iMac CRT.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree. There should be two or three base models at max, with the option to further customize them once you've made your initial selection.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
Whether or not someone is ever going to use PCI slots is irrelevant because most people want that option. I should know-I sell computers. The first questions are-how fast is it?, is it upgradeable? I'm sorry, but you have to give consumers what they want, not what their percieved need is. Apple is not a consumer oriented company, its a CEO oriented company. Thats what got them into trouble in the first place. Jobs has to be able to set his ego aside and listen to someone else for a change-someone who isn't afraid to tell him the truth.
A computer company without a single consumer priced tower is simply not going to gain market share. It most definitely won't reach the 10% Jobs claims to want to see...................................
<strong>Just because a machine is better than it was 6 months ago, does not mean you can raise it's price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh, why not?
They are better/faster/onlyslightlymoreexpensive,
(damn, was that really one sentence?)
<strong>
(damn, was that really one sentence?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. It looked like one of my posts
I admit that if you're in that strata looking for that kind of performance it is a good deal. I can't argue with that, however the need for a low priced tower still remains. How many people would rush out to buy a tower for $999? Lets say the eMac without the monitor. I would bet my left testicle that a $999 tower would outsell the eMac by a country mile. JMHO.................................
Towers have become passe. Take a look at most PC's their nothing more than Desktops turned on their side. Some still perceive the Tower as being almighty but I think computers have integrated into peoples lives and have changed perceptions. I'd prefer a small unit that's quiet and fast enough....oh wow that's the iMac/eMac.
[quote] 3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now. <hr></blockquote>
This is a common misconception. People choose computers based on what apps they want to run. Joe Blow walks into a computer store and he fiddles around with the computers. Now chance are the 'puter he's messin' with is much faster than what he has at home so he's mighty impressed. Blathering about mhz to this guy is useless...he "feels" the speed is acceptable for his standards. There are alot of Joe Blows out there.
[quote]3. Pure number envy BS.... "somebody else's number is bigger, I'm so embarrassed." I had a friend who visited my home, saw my stereo setup and asked "How many watts?" When I told him my Rotel amp is 150 watts per channel, he said "Hmmpf, my Pioneer home theater amp is 450 watts and it only cost me $250." Same thinking. A dual 867 is much better than a Celeron 1.4 or whatever, despite the size of the numbers involved. <hr></blockquote>
OMG <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That's a classic!
[quote] I admit that if you're in that strata looking for that kind of performance it is a good deal. I can't argue with that, however the need for a low priced tower still remains. How many people would rush out to buy a tower for $999? Lets say the eMac without the monitor. I would bet my left testicle that a $999 tower would outsell the eMac by a country mile. JMHO <hr></blockquote>
I agree. I also agree that Apple, despite what they and others say, has a finite amount of sales per year. I believe that they realize this and attempt, like any good company should, to maximize profits. Low cost and expandable Macs WILL cannibalize Powermac sales and the Powermac line is where the money is. For Apple to gain marketshare it's going to have to be a long drawn out process. Cutting the profit out of your company will only delay that process or halt it altogether.
<strong>Well, considering the fact that people were creaming themselves over the dual 800's performance when it was top of the line... I'd say having dual 867s as your low end offering, even if it is $100 more, is pretty sweet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, that was over a year ago!
<strong>Apple isn't growing market share with the iMac. They just aren't selling fast enough. Apple should take a cue from the wintel world-when those companies started producing all-in-one machines they didn't sell very well. The eMac should prove to be more popular because its a better deal, but the need for an inexpensive tower is there. Look what happens when previous models get bumped down in price after new models come out-they fly off the shelves. At what price?-$1299. Look at ebay and see how many used machines are sold-only because Apple doesn't have a reasonably priced product.
Whether or not someone is ever going to use PCI slots is irrelevant because most people want that option. I should know-I sell computers. The first questions are-how fast is it?, is it upgradeable? I'm sorry, but you have to give consumers what they want, not what their percieved need is. Apple is not a consumer oriented company, its a CEO oriented company. Thats what got them into trouble in the first place. Jobs has to be able to set his ego aside and listen to someone else for a change-someone who isn't afraid to tell him the truth.
A computer company without a single consumer priced tower is simply not going to gain market share. It most definitely won't reach the 10% Jobs claims to want to see...................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe Apple should just put a goofy kid on TV and trick a lot of parents into buying a piece of crap at a GREAT price.You can always hide your wintel machine in a rolltop desk or TV cabinet....
Come on, try to remember that the OS and its integration with the right software is a HUGE part of Apple success. Sales to EVERYBODY would be great, but most people don't get it. If apple were Dell, none of us would be here....
<strong>Apple isn't growing market share with the iMac. They just aren't selling fast enough. Apple should take a cue from the wintel world-when those companies started producing all-in-one machines they didn't sell very well. The eMac should prove to be more popular because its a better deal, but the need for an inexpensive tower is there. Look what happens when previous models get bumped down in price after new models come out-they fly off the shelves. At what price?-$1299. Look at ebay and see how many used machines are sold-only because Apple doesn't have a reasonably priced product.
Whether or not someone is ever going to use PCI slots is irrelevant because most people want that option. I should know-I sell computers. The first questions are-how fast is it?, is it upgradeable? I'm sorry, but you have to give consumers what they want, not what their percieved need is. Apple is not a consumer oriented company, its a CEO oriented company. Thats what got them into trouble in the first place. Jobs has to be able to set his ego aside and listen to someone else for a change-someone who isn't afraid to tell him the truth.
A computer company without a single consumer priced tower is simply not going to gain market share. It most definitely won't reach the 10% Jobs claims to want to see...................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll do what you do
Your wrong...
see i'm like you no facts
[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: O and A ]</p>
<strong>you have to give consumers what they want, not what their percieved need is. Apple is not a consumer oriented company, its a CEO oriented company. Thats what got them into trouble in the first place. Jobs has to be able to set his ego aside and listen to someone else for a change-someone who isn't afraid to tell him the truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with Jobs is that he gives consumers what he thinks is better for them. I think this might be called a paternalistic approach. Despite the reputation the iMac got him (and it was not his baby like many seem to think) it's in fact a risky business to have him in such an all-powerful position. Look at the Cube. I'm sure that pissed off the board of directors A LOT: I bet they'll fire him if he does the same mistake again.
Every biography about SJ that I've read states that the big troubles with him usually start when things are going well, and he starts to believe he's some kind of IT messiah.
The only company that didn't suffer from this attitude is Pixar, but then he never cared about the company and the guys there were free to do whatever thay pleased. After Toy Story he decided he wanted to actually start running Pixar as his own creature. After a couple of months they all told him "leave us alone or we'll all resign".
If a CEO like this thinks there's no use for a ? 1,000 upgradable PowerMac then there is no chance we'll ever see one...
ZoSo
Why is this relevant? Simply because Steve -- more than anyone else posting here -- is likely quite upset about the current hardware situation. If you think for a moment that he hasn't been extremely pissed off at the situation of being tied to Motorola and their lack of serious interest in competing in the desktop processor arena, then you're quite mistaken.
However, you have to realize that some things are beyond Steve's control, such as the current chip situation -- or at least, any control he has over it won't result in an immediate change. When Steve spoke about "having options" when the Mac OS X transition is completed, you can bet he was smiling inwardly. The situation as it stands now will Motorola won't always be the case, you can bank on that.
In the meantime, Apple is doing the best it can to churn out machines that compete with the latest Wintel offerings -- and they are doing better than most people give them credit for. In terms of overall system performance when using Mac OS X on a dual 1.25ghz machine vs. the deeply pipelined 2.5+ghz Intel machines running Windows XP, I think you'll find that Apple's offerings stack up quite well.
Apple does have speed problem compared to the Wintel world, but it really is more perception than reality in terms of day to day performance and usability. We have some Wintel boxes at work running XP; their performance doesn't live up to the ghz gap that alarmists who just look at the numbers note with regularity.
If you're expecting the situation to change overnight, you're going to be disappointed, but Mac OS X is one killer operating system, and you can bet Apple fully intends to have hardware to match it.
1. Apple is Steve's baby. He takes great pride in it, and he wants it to be the best. 100% guaranteed the moto/speed issues are pissing him off to no end. If it were only up to him we would have googolhertz G46 processors right now. 8 of 'em in every box!
2. The chip issues are out of Steve's control. Motorola promised a lot of things and they haven't been able to deliver. Hence Steve is doing everything he can in his power to make Macs as fast and usable as possible.
3. We will have faster processors because Steve has decreed it. 100% guaranteed, again, because that's what Steve wants, so he will make it happen.
<strong>A thousand Euros? Using the exchange rate to calculate the UK price might actually work for that! (Unlike dollar prices, where the actual exchange rate is 1:1 for computer equipment..
I was referring to steve666's comment about a 1k ($ or ?, little difference...) upgradable/bare-bones PowerMac flying off the shelves... He actually went so far to bet his left testicle on that...
I'd definitely buy one or two of those babies and then get my hands dirty tweaking, installing and upgrading almost everything inside of them... Ah, the good ol' clone days! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
ZoSo
<strong>Apple doesn't get it? How is it they still successfully sell all-in-one computers in large quantities, whereas every PC manufacturer who tried failed dismally?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, Apple is great at selling all-in-one consumer machines, and that's a fact. What they don't get is that they need to come out with something else (different? better? it depends on what your needs are...) to get hold of that additional 5% market share.
Unfortunately it looks like the market segments Apple is targeting (both in HW and SW) right now are only the consumer (iMac, eMac, iBook, all the iApps) and the highly specialized video/photo editing (FCP, Shake, et alia).
Not exactly what I'd call "mainstream". A niche company that tries to get hold of another niche, ending up being a slightly bigger niche company... Yup, nice (or is it "niche"?
ZoSo
[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</p>