Yeah, the iMacs could use an upgrade. But keep in mind that what Steve is selling isn't just machines. It's a way of doing things. Photos, video, music, etc. all tightly integrated with the machine and OS that it's running on. The iMac accomplishes this in spades. Until someone comes out with the Uber chip you're going to see incremental increases that the typcial A.I. reader is going to bitch and moan about. My neighbor just bought a new Dell w/XP and I watched him work with it for about an hour and could easily think of about 10 things that would've been easier on the Mac. These are things that have nothing to do with the specs of the underlying machine. BTW, I look at the LCDs that these folks use and they suck in comparison. Yeah, they're cheaper...
The PMs are lagging, no doubt. But right now, I don't know if coming out with a much better machine is going to matter much. The folks that buy these things in number are getting their asses handed to them in this economy and aren't buying machines. Employees are taking pay cuts or a being laid off. Yeah, go tell the boss that you need a new machine and you might end up on the heap too. I do freelance work for a LARGE Chicago agency and taking a walk through there is scary. Tons of empty workstations with lifeless Macs sitting there. That's the reality of things.
Hopefully, this year is going to bring some amazing changes for Apple. Much better chips/boards, Quark for X, an upgrade to X that is as good as the Jag upgrade and a recovering economy that is going to get folks some $ to spend. They're making huge strides in the Video/Audio game and trying to give folks a good reason to switch with great software (the i
Apps, Keynote, etc). I hope there's other MS killers on the horizon. If all it took was a spec'd out machine at a cheap price, with a shitty LCD attached then Gateway would be cleaning up. Last time I looked they weren't doing so great.
What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?
<strong>What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Usually that's the time when someone comes out with a Killer App (tm) that makes people upgrade. With all the software engineers Apple bought in the recent years there's hope that Apple will produce a nice must-have application with a huge "MacOS X ONLY" sticker on it.
Thanks for the praise Lemon, though I'm not sure how well my comments were typed up I do think that I made some good points, and there is a lot of room for Apple to move to make their products better with the technology that they have right now.
[quote] Macmedia: ...Yeah, the iMacs could use an upgrade. But keep in mind that what Steve is selling isn't just machines. It's a way of doing things. Photos, video, music, etc. all tightly integrated with the machine and OS that it's running on. The iMac accomplishes this in spades... <hr></blockquote>
Isnt Apple a Hardware company? At least that is what they keep saying. Now I agree that processor speeds are getting to the point that not many people need the power of the highest end products, the bottom end that Apple sells is long in the tooth. This is not helping them sell computers, and no matter how much software they give away if the hardware does not become more competative then the hardware sales will suffer (and have been suffering for the last 12-24 months)
[quote] ...The PMs are lagging, no doubt. But right now, I don't know if coming out with a much better machine is going to matter much. The folks that buy these things in number are getting their asses handed to them in this economy and aren't buying machines. ...<hr></blockquote>
When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.
Another thing that Apple has to do is expand into new markets. They have made some software moves to achieve this in the high end video arena, but right now they dont have the hardware to back up the software. To make a dent in this market they need the faster hardware on the high end.
[quote] there is a lot of room for Apple to move to make their products better with the technology that they have right now.
<hr></blockquote>
Agreed fully. Just look at the superb recent additions to the laptop range.
Breadth of options: 12 inch to 15 to 17 inch screens. Innovation in little things like the ambient light detecting 'glow' keyboard. Fully featured specs. New standards like Firewire 2 and Airport Extreme. Okay. The G4 is still stuck at 1 gig for the laptops...but so what. They've compensated by doing something positive in terms of expanding the range of options open to both high end iBook and Pro laptop buyers. Apple now have options from £799 to £2695 inc VAT. That's impressive. They've really taken the laptop fight to Dell and co. One Apple news story eludes to positive feedback about price/performance comparisons of Apple vs x86 laptops already.
[quote] When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.
Another thing that Apple has to do is expand into new markets. They have made some software moves to achieve this in the high end video arena, but right now they dont have the hardware to back up the software. To make a dent in this market they need the faster hardware on the high end.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. You're right. Compelling.
And the Apple desktops, weirdly, aren't as compelling as the laptops..! Maybe this might change with subsequent revisions to iMac2 and 'power'macs over the next month or so..? Apple are surely aware of it...
'Compelling'. That about sums up the word for me, Apple fans...x86 switchers...print pros... There must be huge pent up demand for the 'power'Macs. But why upgrade unless you're going to see significant cost reductions in terms of investment of the equipment you buy?
A good point about the 'new' markets. Apple's X-serve was a brave move and seems to be paying off. And they've only just begun. With X-raid, things should improve further.
I read an interesting comment in the recent issue of Macworld mag' and Apple have noted that companies don't change work pipelines half way through a project. What's significant is that this person said that many companies are looking at Apple's highend Shake solution and they like the fact it runs on 'Unix'. That sounds good. Maybe a hint that the 970 will hit this year and give those production companies the chance to produce 2004/2005's blockbusters on a 970 Mac. It was gratifying to see the Apple logo for Shake on the Lord or the Ring's credits!
I hope to see Apple enter one or two more markets in 2003. The iPod shows they can be bold.
<strong>Amorph, your point about the single is valid to a point. When Apple marketed the products you are refering to OS X was in its infancy, and there were few applications that could take full advantage of it. It was done for a very good reason, they didnt have enough of the high end processor to offer duals.
However based on where OS X is today, the number of carbonized applications, and the apparent good supply of the high end chips (1.25's), apple could do better at offering higher performance single processor computers with an equivelent speed of the high end duals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in other words, it's even more confusing now than it was, because the DP machines work for a much less specialized market.
[quote]<strong>The people buying the high end models know what the duals will give them, and the software is out there now to support the extra expense of purchasing them today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevertheless, people didn't know what to buy when duals had a clear disadvantage. Why would they know better now? It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Bodhi mentioned in another thread that a rather large customer switched an order from PowerMacs to iMacs because they were frustrated with the PM's price/performance. They didn't even factor in the fact that the PM has twice the processors - they looked at MHz and price. Now imagine if the entire PM line was both single and dual.
[quote]<strong>Based on this I would have to agree that Apple does not "get it" when it comes to desktops, and marketing. Apple has gone an entire year since the iMac was released without a speed increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly think they did so because they don't "get it," or because they ran into an unforeseen problem that required a redesign? (You don't just slap a 1.25GHz G4 in there and expect it to work: Those G4s are much hotter than the 800s.) For contrast, look at the iBook. And the PowerBook. Even the PowerMac got a 25% speed boost and a significantly improved case.
They know better than anyone else that the 15" LCD iMac plunged in demand, given that they shut down the line that assembled it last fall. If they didn't replace it immediately, it's probably because they didn't have a replacement available immediately. Again, look at the rest of their line: They've been pretty good at updating generally. The iMac is an exception, not a rule.
[quote]<strong>Another area that Apple dosnt "get it" in is with their monitors. Granted this is not a big sales area for Apple, but the price that they have has not kept up with the market, and although they have what is arguable the best looking monitors on the market, they are far to limited in application due to only supporting ADC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their monitors are a value add for the PowerMac, and designed accordingly. I assume they'll be updated at or around the time that the PowerMac itself is.
[quote]<strong>[Re: PowerMacs] They could also cut production to a minimum, and give their customers, developers and investors better guidance of how they plan to fix the problem and when they expect to have the problem fixed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should they sell fewer than they can sell? They sold over 150,000 last quarter - not great relative to previous years, but not a bad haul generally. I'm sure they tailor manufacture to demand, and Fred Anderson noted with some satisfaction that they'd cut channel inventory down significantly last quarter, so they're not over capacity.
As for guidance: What if something happens? What if Apple had given guidance a year ago that the Mot G5 was coming along, and they expected to have it out at X date? Anyone who thinks Apple is not working on better products, especially where they're weak, deserves any nail-biting they do. It's a given that they're working on the problem.
[quote]<strong>Now for anyone who dosnt believe that Apple could cut the cost of systems, and still make money, I believe that Apple stated in their financial statement that one factor in their current financial "success" was in lower component cost. They know the flood gates will open up on pro models will open up when the G4 problem is finally fixed, and they have the money to wait it out a bit longer. But if Jobs is ever to make good on his statement last year that he felt that Apple could double their current market share then they are going to have to get more agressive in achieving that goal than they have been in the last 12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say that, and yet you put "success" in quotes because you know as well as I do that falling component costs merely reduced their loss for the quarter. So, had they cut costs, how much money would they still have made? None. They'd simply have lost more money.
I think that to the extent that Apple was not aggressive this past year, it was because of things beyond their control. That's obvious in the case of the PowerMac, and speculation on my part in the case of the iMac, but I'm confident of it.
<strong>What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we underestimate the importance of this fact. Yes, Apple's prices are still too high and performance lags somewhat. But what Macmedia says is so true. No one is upgrading because it's not financially prudent to do so during this economic downturn.
I know in our studio, we haven't upgraded our G4 PowerMacs running at 400 and 350 respectively. They're not super fast, but they get the job done.
As far as coming up with a killer app, well that's easier said than done. Off the top of my head, I can only come up with something to do with film or 3D rendering. Apple has purchased a bunch of graphic type companies in the past year and perhaps has something up their sleeves.
"I hate Apple and I know Apple is going to die because their desktops suck or [insert reason here]."
I don't know but am I the only one bothered by all of the constant whining and complaining about Apple's desktop line? I'm no Apple cheerleader by any stretch of the imagination, and yes, I think Apple is lying in the proverbial bed that it made for itself, and rightly so. (IIRC, Apple shunned IBM's strategy for higher clock-speed chips in favour of Moto's AltiVec, right?) But honestly, if you were in the position that Apple is in right now with the G4, what would you do?
I'd go on, but I'm sure I'll just be reiterating what's been said here before many times (if I haven't already done that). You'd think I would have gotten used to all of this doom and gloom about Apple and the Mac by now, seeing as how I've been lurking here for a few months. Maybe after I get my post count up to the levels of people like Matsu or LBB,
<strong>Now for anyone who dosnt believe that Apple could cut the cost of systems, and still make money...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the issue. The issue is, if they cut the price of their systems would they make more money. A 10% price cut will likely not result in a 10% increase in buyers, given the current lineup. And building those extra machines requires a greater investment than building 10% fewer machines and selling them for more.
Apple could make a few small, incremental improvements in their current machines, but anything except just a clock rate bump from Motorola is going to cost them engineering effort, sourcing new parts, new production lines. And 6-8 months from now they will very likely have a completely new architecture which will dramatically improve their position in the market. They're getting by in the market right now, and can keep their head above water until the new technology arrives -- especially on the strength of their notebook line, which does pretty well with the current technology. So why make changes?
Another factor is that all PC vendors these days are faced with the challenge of how do you convince existing owners that the new hardware is enough improved to warrant spending the money on? Having a larger delta between generations of hardware is more likely to entice the upgraders.
<strong>(IIRC, Apple shunned IBM's strategy for higher clock-speed chips in favour of Moto's AltiVec, right?) But honestly, if you were in the position that Apple is in right now with the G4, what would you do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I wouldn't describe the situation that way. AIM jointly designed the VMX extension to PowerPC and then IBM opted out of building processors with it. This basically put an end to the jointly designed chips. IBM hasn't pursued a strategy for higher clock rate chips, in fact they really haven't pursued any high performance desktop chips until now with the 970.
We're not privvy to what happened inside of AIM, but from what we can tell it looks like IBM bailed from the design process at around the time of the G4's introduction. The plans for Core2K were taken by Motorola and pushed forward to create the G5. Unfortunately for reasons that we don't know for sure (and may never know), this chip was deemed inadequate -- yield & heat issues being the most likely reasons, but contention about the system interface could have been a reason. This may not have been entirely an Apple decision either because it was about then that Motorola decided to publicly state that they were getting out of the desktop chip business. We don't know the cause and effect of this, i.e. whether it was because Apple wasn't happy with the G5, or the G5 was dropped because Motorola didn't see a future in it. There is the further problem that Motorola wasn't having much success with new fabs and processes -- this wouldn't instill much confidence in Apple. All that must have happened sometime in 2000 because around then Apple and IBM started discussing the possibility of combining IBM's upcoming POWER4 technology with VMX and building a desktop chip. Working through 2001 & 2002 they've managed to bring the 970 to sampling and production in 2003, with a goal of migrating to 0.09 by (early?) 2004.
Where we're currently at is the end of a long wait by Apple for the future of its hardware architecture. Now they'll have multiple processor lines to choose from, and the interconnects of their systems will likely be RapidIO. 970, IBM G3 w/ VMX + RIO, Motorola 7457-RM. Pretty good selection, and a dramatic improvement over the last 2-3 years.
[[[When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.]]]
Again, that depends on the business you are talking about... I'm willing to bet that the majority of the installed base already has enough computer than what they need. Going to a higher clock-rate isn't going to make anyone more productive unless you are doing some serious number-crunching that requires the increase in speed. I see those applications as the minority, therefore most people do not need the extra cycles, they'd be simply burning them.
[[[Another factor is that all PC vendors these days are faced with the challenge of how do you convince existing owners that the new hardware is enough improved to warrant spending the money on? ]]]
Exactly!
I think Programmer just stated part the same point I made earlier in my other post. What is it that will make PCs so compelling that people will upgrade *often*? The answer is going to be tough for OEMs that are mere "cookie-cutter" of everyone else. There is no differentiation other than price and perceived quality and of course a brand-name association, but they all just run the same old Windows OS. And If you take the time to read the article linked to the above URL, you will see that Intel knows they must do something to shift people's attention away from MHz. -- the threshold has been reached up to this point and people find that what they have is more than enough for their needs. therefore, the only people that the OEMs will be targeting with the higher specs will be the people who *want* the "latest and the greatest". No wonder why the OEMs are having a rough go of it.
As for the future of the Mac, well, I think it look extremely bright.
IBM will soon be releasing their own PowerPC-based desktop workstations based on their PPC970 CPU derived from the Power4 super-chip. So what, right?
The common rumor as we believe it says that Apple will be using these SAME CPUs in their upcoming workstations (X-station?). If that's true then there will likely be a LOT of potential software available that can easily be ported to Mac OS X and run like a dream. Even if Apple doesn't use the 970 things will be just as sweet simply because the PPC970 maintains code compatibility with the current PPCs from Motorola that are used in the current Macs. That's the beauty of the PPC ISA design and foundation! Here is where it gets interesting... (Just think about it for a few seconds)
IBM will definitely want a lot of developers bringing their *high-end* wares over to these new workstations, and I don't mean apps like Photoshop, Quark and Office. I'm talking REALLY high-end apps. So, all these software companies who putzed around, complaining that there isn't a market value in developing for the Mac will suddenly sit up at attention because it's IBM who is requesting their attention for PPC development now. So you can bet that we will see many of these apps running on these boxes if IBM has anything to say about it and it won't just be a *port*. The code and optimizations will have to be coded specifically for the CPU and LINUX.
At this point it would make little sense NOT to port to OSX, since the task will be trivial. Does IBM hold clout in the market? You bet your ass they do! I'm willing to bet we'll see DB/2 on OS X around the same time ;-) Therefore, IMNSHO, this is how Apple will gain a lot of extremely high-end applications -- apps that many of us haven't even heard of. But wait, there's more... ;-)
I remember reading an article that quoted a fellow from IBM while at the Microprocessor Forum this past October who was fielding questions about the new systems... In one of his comments he noted that the systems were meant to be 4-way SMP boxes *initially*. What does this tell us? It tells us that if there is any software that will be ported to the IBM system then it is likely that it will be SMP-enabled. It then follows that any apps ported to OS X will also share this same quality. So, I expect it to get interesting... There are a few more things to consider.
It's likely that IBM is eyeing other areas and not the *consumer* desktop -- areas like the ultra-high-end stuff and other *non commercial* or commonly used apps. we're familiar with. What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that apps like Photoshop will come DIRECTLY to the IBM PPC-970 platform ... though they could, but everyday, mainstream users aren't going to be running and fumbling with LINUX, that's for sure... I guess it'd be safe to say that if ANY of these apps are ported to the new IBM desktops with LINUX then the task of bringing them over to OS X is trivial. Apple X11 anyone? ;-)
<strong>[[[When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.]]]
Again, that depends on the business you are talking about... I'm willing to bet that the majority of the installed base already has enough computer than what they need. Going to a higher clock-rate isn't going to make anyone more productive unless you are doing some serious number-crunching that requires the increase in speed. I see those applications as the minority, therefore most people do not need the extra cycles, they'd be simply burning them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I definitely believe you've missed the mark in terms of the Mac market. The PC market, perhaps, is saturated to the point where it matters increasingly less what the MHz rating is on the machines. However, I believe there is a significant amount of pent up demand for high end, truly powerful Macs. Many of us have been holding off on purchasing desktops for quite some time. I definitely wish to give Apple money for a great desktop, but I'm not parting with that cash until the next generation is delivered.
The PC market has experienced frenzied competition between Intel and AMD. They've been moving so much faster than Apple. And the simple truth is the G4s are a terrible value. Certainly they are fast. But are they fast in terms of PC offerings? No. And are they fast in terms of price? Again, the answer is a resounding no. The G4 is a failure as a desktop chip. Apple should realize its customers are ignorant; they know the shortcomings of the G4, and they see 970 isn't too far off. The 970 will offer a dramatic increase in performance; it will finally bring performance parity (or near it) back to the platform. Users know that and anxiously await it. Unless there is a pressing need to purchase hardware, most are going to wait until Apple delivers.
When Apple finally delivers, sales should be wonderful. Let's just hope that Apple can keep up with the demand. (They were certainly unable to do so with the iMac introduction and it cost the company significantly.)
I know plenty of "designers" running happily on a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I know some who upgraded to a dual 500 and find it very fast - under MacOS9! Most 2D people (illustration, print, web, etc) don't even know or care much about as long as it works and when their old machines feel like getting too slow (in the case of the 450 MHz ones Macromedia's MX line is bringing them down) they will upgrade. To the 450 MHz people a dual 867 G4 with OSX can be three to four times the performance. Sure they'll pay up, but a dual 1 GHz is again too much power to spend money on already. The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.
<strong>I know plenty of "designers" running happily on a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I know some who upgraded to a dual 500 and find it very fast - under MacOS9! Most 2D people (illustration, print, web, etc) don't even know or care much about as long as it works and when their old machines feel like getting too slow (in the case of the 450 MHz ones Macromedia's MX line is bringing them down) they will upgrade. To the 450 MHz people a dual 867 G4 with OSX can be three to four times the performance. Sure they'll pay up, but a dual 1 GHz is again too much power to spend money on already. The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what i said: give these people a imac with a bigger screen (19") and they're as happy as a one year old with a old newspaper (or a teenager with daddy's car)
<strong>I know plenty of "designers" running happily on a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I know some who upgraded to a dual 500 and find it very fast - under MacOS9! Most 2D people (illustration, print, web, etc) don't even know or care much about as long as it works and when their old machines feel like getting too slow (in the case of the 450 MHz ones Macromedia's MX line is bringing them down) they will upgrade. To the 450 MHz people a dual 867 G4 with OSX can be three to four times the performance. Sure they'll pay up, but a dual 1 GHz is again too much power to spend money on already. The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost true. I am a designer who upgraded from a 450 G4. I upgraded to the dual gig QS and yes, it is 3-4 times faster. I don't agree it's too much power to spend on as I intended it to last awhile. However, I plan to sell it on ebay and get the 970 when it comes out. If these designers are making money then I think they would upgrade if they were smart. Why? Because it's a tax deduction.
<strong>The common rumor as we believe it says that Apple will be using these SAME CPUs in their upcoming workstations (X-station?). If that's true then there will likely be a LOT of potential software available that can easily be ported to
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM made a line of "computers" by the name of XStation already -> they hold whatever relevant IP (Trademark in particular) might pertain.
The part that is most facinating about the whole ppc970 thing is... what if IBM _does_ jump on it with both feet?
_IBM_ won't be undercutting Apple's price if they sold RS/6000s or pServers w/Mac OS X installed. You could hardly even call it cloning with a straight face.
Add this to distributed objects and rumors of Mac OS X OS-level clustering support -> "Would you like AIX, Red Hat Linux, or Mac OS X with your purchase? We'll support them all of course..."
<strong>Fred Anderson said that their income from interest will drop significantly in the third quarter of 2003.
Does this mean interest rates will go down, or does it mean that they are going to do some big spending?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it just means that the extra revenue generated from interest on their cash reserves won't be as much because the banks reduced their interest rates.... and that is usually added to the Quarterly reports.
..., this chip was deemed inadequate -- yield & heat issues being the most likely reasons, but contention
...or the G5 was dropped because Motorola didn't see a future in it....<hr></blockquote>
If I remember correctly, the orginal spec.'s listed on Motorola's roadmap had the G5 on a 0.1µm process. Maybe this was shifted to 0.13µm(re: for what may be a variety of reasons) and the desktop version on 0.13µm was just too hot, as reported by numerous rumor and non-rumor sites(ie. Arcintosh). If any of these rumors had any veracity, then these machines, @ the time, were extremely fast.
But we now have the G5 w/ an E500 core, not suitable for desktops, and IS listed using a 0.13µm process.
Then again I could be mistaken and completely wrong.
Footnote: It is somewhat interesting that Motorola has been banding about 0.13µm and 0.09µm processes in their press releases since changing their roadmap, then, with the advent of their recent new relationships with STMicroelectronics, Phillips and Tower the 0.1µm process has recently begun to reappear in some of their press releases. Relevant, probably not, but interesting nontheless.
Comments
A substantial and well reasoned post.
Explained better than I did.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Homenow, so agreed on the Monitor's front. Formac are kicking Apple's ass in performance, quality control and price!
AND...they look better!!!
:eek:
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
The PMs are lagging, no doubt. But right now, I don't know if coming out with a much better machine is going to matter much. The folks that buy these things in number are getting their asses handed to them in this economy and aren't buying machines. Employees are taking pay cuts or a being laid off. Yeah, go tell the boss that you need a new machine and you might end up on the heap too. I do freelance work for a LARGE Chicago agency and taking a walk through there is scary. Tons of empty workstations with lifeless Macs sitting there. That's the reality of things.
Hopefully, this year is going to bring some amazing changes for Apple. Much better chips/boards, Quark for X, an upgrade to X that is as good as the Jag upgrade and a recovering economy that is going to get folks some $ to spend. They're making huge strides in the Video/Audio game and trying to give folks a good reason to switch with great software (the i
Apps, Keynote, etc). I hope there's other MS killers on the horizon. If all it took was a spec'd out machine at a cheap price, with a shitty LCD attached then Gateway would be cleaning up. Last time I looked they weren't doing so great.
What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?
<strong>Quark for X,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I had to chuckle here.
[quote]Originally posted by Macmedia:
<strong>What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Usually that's the time when someone comes out with a Killer App (tm) that makes people upgrade. With all the software engineers Apple bought in the recent years there's hope that Apple will produce a nice must-have application with a huge "MacOS X ONLY" sticker on it.
<strong>Amorph and myself have been clearly washed away by a superior post.
A substantial and well reasoned post.
Explained better than I did.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Homenow, so agreed on the Monitor's front. Formac are kicking Apple's ass in performance, quality control and price!
AND...they look better!!!
:eek:
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the praise Lemon, though I'm not sure how well my comments were typed up I do think that I made some good points, and there is a lot of room for Apple to move to make their products better with the technology that they have right now.
[quote] Macmedia: ...Yeah, the iMacs could use an upgrade. But keep in mind that what Steve is selling isn't just machines. It's a way of doing things. Photos, video, music, etc. all tightly integrated with the machine and OS that it's running on. The iMac accomplishes this in spades... <hr></blockquote>
Isnt Apple a Hardware company? At least that is what they keep saying. Now I agree that processor speeds are getting to the point that not many people need the power of the highest end products, the bottom end that Apple sells is long in the tooth. This is not helping them sell computers, and no matter how much software they give away if the hardware does not become more competative then the hardware sales will suffer (and have been suffering for the last 12-24 months)
[quote] ...The PMs are lagging, no doubt. But right now, I don't know if coming out with a much better machine is going to matter much. The folks that buy these things in number are getting their asses handed to them in this economy and aren't buying machines. ...<hr></blockquote>
When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.
Another thing that Apple has to do is expand into new markets. They have made some software moves to achieve this in the high end video arena, but right now they dont have the hardware to back up the software. To make a dent in this market they need the faster hardware on the high end.
<hr></blockquote>
Agreed fully. Just look at the superb recent additions to the laptop range.
Breadth of options: 12 inch to 15 to 17 inch screens. Innovation in little things like the ambient light detecting 'glow' keyboard. Fully featured specs. New standards like Firewire 2 and Airport Extreme. Okay. The G4 is still stuck at 1 gig for the laptops...but so what. They've compensated by doing something positive in terms of expanding the range of options open to both high end iBook and Pro laptop buyers. Apple now have options from £799 to £2695 inc VAT. That's impressive. They've really taken the laptop fight to Dell and co. One Apple news story eludes to positive feedback about price/performance comparisons of Apple vs x86 laptops already.
[quote] When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.
Another thing that Apple has to do is expand into new markets. They have made some software moves to achieve this in the high end video arena, but right now they dont have the hardware to back up the software. To make a dent in this market they need the faster hardware on the high end.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. You're right. Compelling.
And the Apple desktops, weirdly, aren't as compelling as the laptops..! Maybe this might change with subsequent revisions to iMac2 and 'power'macs over the next month or so..? Apple are surely aware of it...
'Compelling'. That about sums up the word for me, Apple fans...x86 switchers...print pros... There must be huge pent up demand for the 'power'Macs. But why upgrade unless you're going to see significant cost reductions in terms of investment of the equipment you buy?
A good point about the 'new' markets. Apple's X-serve was a brave move and seems to be paying off. And they've only just begun. With X-raid, things should improve further.
I read an interesting comment in the recent issue of Macworld mag' and Apple have noted that companies don't change work pipelines half way through a project. What's significant is that this person said that many companies are looking at Apple's highend Shake solution and they like the fact it runs on 'Unix'. That sounds good. Maybe a hint that the 970 will hit this year and give those production companies the chance to produce 2004/2005's blockbusters on a 970 Mac. It was gratifying to see the Apple logo for Shake on the Lord or the Ring's credits!
I hope to see Apple enter one or two more markets in 2003. The iPod shows they can be bold.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Amorph, your point about the single is valid to a point. When Apple marketed the products you are refering to OS X was in its infancy, and there were few applications that could take full advantage of it. It was done for a very good reason, they didnt have enough of the high end processor to offer duals.
However based on where OS X is today, the number of carbonized applications, and the apparent good supply of the high end chips (1.25's), apple could do better at offering higher performance single processor computers with an equivelent speed of the high end duals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in other words, it's even more confusing now than it was, because the DP machines work for a much less specialized market.
[quote]<strong>The people buying the high end models know what the duals will give them, and the software is out there now to support the extra expense of purchasing them today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevertheless, people didn't know what to buy when duals had a clear disadvantage. Why would they know better now? It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Bodhi mentioned in another thread that a rather large customer switched an order from PowerMacs to iMacs because they were frustrated with the PM's price/performance. They didn't even factor in the fact that the PM has twice the processors - they looked at MHz and price. Now imagine if the entire PM line was both single and dual.
[quote]<strong>Based on this I would have to agree that Apple does not "get it" when it comes to desktops, and marketing. Apple has gone an entire year since the iMac was released without a speed increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly think they did so because they don't "get it," or because they ran into an unforeseen problem that required a redesign? (You don't just slap a 1.25GHz G4 in there and expect it to work: Those G4s are much hotter than the 800s.) For contrast, look at the iBook. And the PowerBook. Even the PowerMac got a 25% speed boost and a significantly improved case.
They know better than anyone else that the 15" LCD iMac plunged in demand, given that they shut down the line that assembled it last fall. If they didn't replace it immediately, it's probably because they didn't have a replacement available immediately. Again, look at the rest of their line: They've been pretty good at updating generally. The iMac is an exception, not a rule.
[quote]<strong>Another area that Apple dosnt "get it" in is with their monitors. Granted this is not a big sales area for Apple, but the price that they have has not kept up with the market, and although they have what is arguable the best looking monitors on the market, they are far to limited in application due to only supporting ADC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their monitors are a value add for the PowerMac, and designed accordingly. I assume they'll be updated at or around the time that the PowerMac itself is.
[quote]<strong>[Re: PowerMacs] They could also cut production to a minimum, and give their customers, developers and investors better guidance of how they plan to fix the problem and when they expect to have the problem fixed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should they sell fewer than they can sell? They sold over 150,000 last quarter - not great relative to previous years, but not a bad haul generally. I'm sure they tailor manufacture to demand, and Fred Anderson noted with some satisfaction that they'd cut channel inventory down significantly last quarter, so they're not over capacity.
As for guidance: What if something happens? What if Apple had given guidance a year ago that the Mot G5 was coming along, and they expected to have it out at X date? Anyone who thinks Apple is not working on better products, especially where they're weak, deserves any nail-biting they do. It's a given that they're working on the problem.
[quote]<strong>Now for anyone who dosnt believe that Apple could cut the cost of systems, and still make money, I believe that Apple stated in their financial statement that one factor in their current financial "success" was in lower component cost. They know the flood gates will open up on pro models will open up when the G4 problem is finally fixed, and they have the money to wait it out a bit longer. But if Jobs is ever to make good on his statement last year that he felt that Apple could double their current market share then they are going to have to get more agressive in achieving that goal than they have been in the last 12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say that, and yet you put "success" in quotes because you know as well as I do that falling component costs merely reduced their loss for the quarter. So, had they cut costs, how much money would they still have made? None. They'd simply have lost more money.
I think that to the extent that Apple was not aggressive this past year, it was because of things beyond their control. That's obvious in the case of the PowerMac, and speculation on my part in the case of the iMac, but I'm confident of it.
We'll see when the next iMac comes out.
<strong>What do you do when the computer market becomes saturated?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we underestimate the importance of this fact. Yes, Apple's prices are still too high and performance lags somewhat. But what Macmedia says is so true. No one is upgrading because it's not financially prudent to do so during this economic downturn.
I know in our studio, we haven't upgraded our G4 PowerMacs running at 400 and 350 respectively. They're not super fast, but they get the job done.
As far as coming up with a killer app, well that's easier said than done. Off the top of my head, I can only come up with something to do with film or 3D rendering. Apple has purchased a bunch of graphic type companies in the past year and perhaps has something up their sleeves.
I don't know but am I the only one bothered by all of the constant whining and complaining about Apple's desktop line? I'm no Apple cheerleader by any stretch of the imagination, and yes, I think Apple is lying in the proverbial bed that it made for itself, and rightly so. (IIRC, Apple shunned IBM's strategy for higher clock-speed chips in favour of Moto's AltiVec, right?) But honestly, if you were in the position that Apple is in right now with the G4, what would you do?
I'd go on, but I'm sure I'll just be reiterating what's been said here before many times (if I haven't already done that). You'd think I would have gotten used to all of this doom and gloom about Apple and the Mac by now, seeing as how I've been lurking here for a few months. Maybe after I get my post count up to the levels of people like Matsu or LBB,
it'll all be just second nature to me.
<strong>Now for anyone who dosnt believe that Apple could cut the cost of systems, and still make money...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the issue. The issue is, if they cut the price of their systems would they make more money. A 10% price cut will likely not result in a 10% increase in buyers, given the current lineup. And building those extra machines requires a greater investment than building 10% fewer machines and selling them for more.
Apple could make a few small, incremental improvements in their current machines, but anything except just a clock rate bump from Motorola is going to cost them engineering effort, sourcing new parts, new production lines. And 6-8 months from now they will very likely have a completely new architecture which will dramatically improve their position in the market. They're getting by in the market right now, and can keep their head above water until the new technology arrives -- especially on the strength of their notebook line, which does pretty well with the current technology. So why make changes?
Another factor is that all PC vendors these days are faced with the challenge of how do you convince existing owners that the new hardware is enough improved to warrant spending the money on? Having a larger delta between generations of hardware is more likely to entice the upgraders.
<strong>(IIRC, Apple shunned IBM's strategy for higher clock-speed chips in favour of Moto's AltiVec, right?) But honestly, if you were in the position that Apple is in right now with the G4, what would you do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I wouldn't describe the situation that way. AIM jointly designed the VMX extension to PowerPC and then IBM opted out of building processors with it. This basically put an end to the jointly designed chips. IBM hasn't pursued a strategy for higher clock rate chips, in fact they really haven't pursued any high performance desktop chips until now with the 970.
We're not privvy to what happened inside of AIM, but from what we can tell it looks like IBM bailed from the design process at around the time of the G4's introduction. The plans for Core2K were taken by Motorola and pushed forward to create the G5. Unfortunately for reasons that we don't know for sure (and may never know), this chip was deemed inadequate -- yield & heat issues being the most likely reasons, but contention about the system interface could have been a reason. This may not have been entirely an Apple decision either because it was about then that Motorola decided to publicly state that they were getting out of the desktop chip business. We don't know the cause and effect of this, i.e. whether it was because Apple wasn't happy with the G5, or the G5 was dropped because Motorola didn't see a future in it. There is the further problem that Motorola wasn't having much success with new fabs and processes -- this wouldn't instill much confidence in Apple. All that must have happened sometime in 2000 because around then Apple and IBM started discussing the possibility of combining IBM's upcoming POWER4 technology with VMX and building a desktop chip. Working through 2001 & 2002 they've managed to bring the 970 to sampling and production in 2003, with a goal of migrating to 0.09 by (early?) 2004.
Where we're currently at is the end of a long wait by Apple for the future of its hardware architecture. Now they'll have multiple processor lines to choose from, and the interconnects of their systems will likely be RapidIO. 970, IBM G3 w/ VMX + RIO, Motorola 7457-RM. Pretty good selection, and a dramatic improvement over the last 2-3 years.
<hr></blockquote>
973
Lemon Bon Bon
Again, that depends on the business you are talking about... I'm willing to bet that the majority of the installed base already has enough computer than what they need. Going to a higher clock-rate isn't going to make anyone more productive unless you are doing some serious number-crunching that requires the increase in speed. I see those applications as the minority, therefore most people do not need the extra cycles, they'd be simply burning them.
I also posted this URL:
<a href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2902061,00.html"; target="_blank">http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2902061,00.html</a>;
I posed a few questions to Matsu in <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002905&p="; target="_blank">another thread discussion</a>and Programmer posed the gist of part of one again here in this thread.
[[[Another factor is that all PC vendors these days are faced with the challenge of how do you convince existing owners that the new hardware is enough improved to warrant spending the money on? ]]]
Exactly!
I think Programmer just stated part the same point I made earlier in my other post. What is it that will make PCs so compelling that people will upgrade *often*? The answer is going to be tough for OEMs that are mere "cookie-cutter" of everyone else. There is no differentiation other than price and perceived quality and of course a brand-name association, but they all just run the same old Windows OS. And If you take the time to read the article linked to the above URL, you will see that Intel knows they must do something to shift people's attention away from MHz. -- the threshold has been reached up to this point and people find that what they have is more than enough for their needs. therefore, the only people that the OEMs will be targeting with the higher specs will be the people who *want* the "latest and the greatest". No wonder why the OEMs are having a rough go of it.
As for the future of the Mac, well, I think it look extremely bright.
IBM will soon be releasing their own PowerPC-based desktop workstations based on their PPC970 CPU derived from the Power4 super-chip. So what, right?
The common rumor as we believe it says that Apple will be using these SAME CPUs in their upcoming workstations (X-station?). If that's true then there will likely be a LOT of potential software available that can easily be ported to Mac OS X and run like a dream. Even if Apple doesn't use the 970 things will be just as sweet simply because the PPC970 maintains code compatibility with the current PPCs from Motorola that are used in the current Macs. That's the beauty of the PPC ISA design and foundation! Here is where it gets interesting... (Just think about it for a few seconds)
IBM will definitely want a lot of developers bringing their *high-end* wares over to these new workstations, and I don't mean apps like Photoshop, Quark and Office. I'm talking REALLY high-end apps. So, all these software companies who putzed around, complaining that there isn't a market value in developing for the Mac will suddenly sit up at attention because it's IBM who is requesting their attention for PPC development now. So you can bet that we will see many of these apps running on these boxes if IBM has anything to say about it and it won't just be a *port*. The code and optimizations will have to be coded specifically for the CPU and LINUX.
At this point it would make little sense NOT to port to OSX, since the task will be trivial. Does IBM hold clout in the market? You bet your ass they do! I'm willing to bet we'll see DB/2 on OS X around the same time ;-) Therefore, IMNSHO, this is how Apple will gain a lot of extremely high-end applications -- apps that many of us haven't even heard of. But wait, there's more... ;-)
I remember reading an article that quoted a fellow from IBM while at the Microprocessor Forum this past October who was fielding questions about the new systems... In one of his comments he noted that the systems were meant to be 4-way SMP boxes *initially*. What does this tell us? It tells us that if there is any software that will be ported to the IBM system then it is likely that it will be SMP-enabled. It then follows that any apps ported to OS X will also share this same quality. So, I expect it to get interesting... There are a few more things to consider.
It's likely that IBM is eyeing other areas and not the *consumer* desktop -- areas like the ultra-high-end stuff and other *non commercial* or commonly used apps. we're familiar with. What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that apps like Photoshop will come DIRECTLY to the IBM PPC-970 platform ... though they could, but everyday, mainstream users aren't going to be running and fumbling with LINUX, that's for sure... I guess it'd be safe to say that if ANY of these apps are ported to the new IBM desktops with LINUX then the task of bringing them over to OS X is trivial. Apple X11 anyone? ;-)
<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/</a>;
Programmer am I on the right track here? What do you think?
--
Ed M.
<strong>[[[When buisness see a compelling reason to upgrade, they will. Granted the economy is not helping, but the gains in productivity with the current offerings by Apple do not justify the cost of major upgrades by their large customers. If these companies see a goood productivity gain to offset the cost of the upgrades they will do it, and possibly cut some saleried positions at the same time, which makes more money for the company in the long run.]]]
Again, that depends on the business you are talking about... I'm willing to bet that the majority of the installed base already has enough computer than what they need. Going to a higher clock-rate isn't going to make anyone more productive unless you are doing some serious number-crunching that requires the increase in speed. I see those applications as the minority, therefore most people do not need the extra cycles, they'd be simply burning them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I definitely believe you've missed the mark in terms of the Mac market. The PC market, perhaps, is saturated to the point where it matters increasingly less what the MHz rating is on the machines. However, I believe there is a significant amount of pent up demand for high end, truly powerful Macs. Many of us have been holding off on purchasing desktops for quite some time. I definitely wish to give Apple money for a great desktop, but I'm not parting with that cash until the next generation is delivered.
The PC market has experienced frenzied competition between Intel and AMD. They've been moving so much faster than Apple. And the simple truth is the G4s are a terrible value. Certainly they are fast. But are they fast in terms of PC offerings? No. And are they fast in terms of price? Again, the answer is a resounding no. The G4 is a failure as a desktop chip. Apple should realize its customers are ignorant; they know the shortcomings of the G4, and they see 970 isn't too far off. The 970 will offer a dramatic increase in performance; it will finally bring performance parity (or near it) back to the platform. Users know that and anxiously await it. Unless there is a pressing need to purchase hardware, most are going to wait until Apple delivers.
When Apple finally delivers, sales should be wonderful. Let's just hope that Apple can keep up with the demand. (They were certainly unable to do so with the iMac introduction and it cost the company significantly.)
<strong>I know plenty of "designers" running happily on a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I know some who upgraded to a dual 500 and find it very fast - under MacOS9! Most 2D people (illustration, print, web, etc) don't even know or care much about as long as it works and when their old machines feel like getting too slow (in the case of the 450 MHz ones Macromedia's MX line is bringing them down) they will upgrade. To the 450 MHz people a dual 867 G4 with OSX can be three to four times the performance. Sure they'll pay up, but a dual 1 GHz is again too much power to spend money on already. The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what i said: give these people a imac with a bigger screen (19") and they're as happy as a one year old with a old newspaper (or a teenager with daddy's car)
<strong>I know plenty of "designers" running happily on a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I know some who upgraded to a dual 500 and find it very fast - under MacOS9! Most 2D people (illustration, print, web, etc) don't even know or care much about as long as it works and when their old machines feel like getting too slow (in the case of the 450 MHz ones Macromedia's MX line is bringing them down) they will upgrade. To the 450 MHz people a dual 867 G4 with OSX can be three to four times the performance. Sure they'll pay up, but a dual 1 GHz is again too much power to spend money on already. The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost true. I am a designer who upgraded from a 450 G4. I upgraded to the dual gig QS and yes, it is 3-4 times faster. I don't agree it's too much power to spend on as I intended it to last awhile. However, I plan to sell it on ebay and get the 970 when it comes out. If these designers are making money then I think they would upgrade if they were smart. Why? Because it's a tax deduction.
Oh, I completely agree with you.. I *was* referring to the actual "PC" or "Windows" crowd... ;-)
[[[The 970 will offer a dramatic increase in performance; it will finally bring performance parity (or near it) back to the platform.]]]
Chip-for-chip you mean... If 970 is going to be used in any type of SMP the gains should embarrass the competition.
[[[Unless there is a pressing need to purchase hardware, most are going to wait until Apple delivers. ]]]
So be it.
[[[The only people caring much about top-of-the-line speed are those who are in contact with the PC world and get their portion of Intel FUD.]]]
xype, you are absolutely correct in that statement.
--
Ed M.
<strong>The common rumor as we believe it says that Apple will be using these SAME CPUs in their upcoming workstations (X-station?). If that's true then there will likely be a LOT of potential software available that can easily be ported to
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM made a line of "computers" by the name of XStation already -> they hold whatever relevant IP (Trademark in particular) might pertain.
The part that is most facinating about the whole ppc970 thing is... what if IBM _does_ jump on it with both feet?
_IBM_ won't be undercutting Apple's price if they sold RS/6000s or pServers w/Mac OS X installed. You could hardly even call it cloning with a straight face.
Add this to distributed objects and rumors of Mac OS X OS-level clustering support -> "Would you like AIX, Red Hat Linux, or Mac OS X with your purchase? We'll support them all of course..."
<strong>Fred Anderson said that their income from interest will drop significantly in the third quarter of 2003.
Does this mean interest rates will go down, or does it mean that they are going to do some big spending?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it just means that the extra revenue generated from interest on their cash reserves won't be as much because the banks reduced their interest rates.... and that is usually added to the Quarterly reports.
..., this chip was deemed inadequate -- yield & heat issues being the most likely reasons, but contention
...or the G5 was dropped because Motorola didn't see a future in it....<hr></blockquote>
If I remember correctly, the orginal spec.'s listed on Motorola's roadmap had the G5 on a 0.1µm process. Maybe this was shifted to 0.13µm(re: for what may be a variety of reasons) and the desktop version on 0.13µm was just too hot, as reported by numerous rumor and non-rumor sites(ie. Arcintosh). If any of these rumors had any veracity, then these machines, @ the time, were extremely fast.
But we now have the G5 w/ an E500 core, not suitable for desktops, and IS listed using a 0.13µm process.
Then again I could be mistaken and completely wrong.
Footnote: It is somewhat interesting that Motorola has been banding about 0.13µm and 0.09µm processes in their press releases since changing their roadmap, then, with the advent of their recent new relationships with STMicroelectronics, Phillips and Tower the 0.1µm process has recently begun to reappear in some of their press releases. Relevant, probably not, but interesting nontheless.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>