Apple on pace to sell 4.8M Macs in holiday quarter, down 7% year over year - Page 3

 And which 'goodwill' product, of the hundreds of hardware/software combinations that Mac users ask for, should they pick? Your particular favourite? Someone else's?

 

That's no longer the case:

 

1- The new 2012 Mac Mini has serious HDMI bugs (likely hardware bugs related to the HD4000) and Apple doesn't look too interested in fixing it. A big number of new Mini owners are quite upset about this bug, and others are holding their purchase as you can see in quite a few threads at Apple Discussions (Mac Mini forum).

 

2- The iMac... well, there's no iMac to begin with. And, once it's released, it will first need to be proven that the new form factor can do good use of the GPU and the CPU without heat issues. The previous iMac has been famous for screen-decoloration when using it for intense CPU work, and the new design doesn't look more heat efficient than the previous one.

 

3- The Mac Pro... well... it shouldn't cost Apple more than one month to design a brand-new Mac Pro, with a rebirth of the cube form factor if you wish. But it seems they don't have anybody working full time on the new Mac Pro, so, when they said the new Mac Pro was coming in 2013, they meant "end of 2013". It's quite likely that the recent rumor about Apple employees having "free weeks" for working in alternative projects was meant as the way they've planned to develop the new Mac Pro (as a voluntary project for the spare time of iPad/iPhone engineers).

 

 

You know, the policy of investing more money and resources in the products that generate you more income (iOS in this case) isn't always a safe strategy. It might mean that you need to reinforce the products that you're currently selling less. If you neglect these other products, you'll lose your position in the market. And, yes, Apple is neglecting the Mac, because they're not only investing more in iOS, but reducing the investment on the Mac.

 

It is a false impression that Apple dominates in PC consumer satisfaction. The reason is that Apple refuses to offer computers for the masses. All other manufacturers are totally capable of offering the same high-quality PC/laptops.

 

 

 

This is the reason why the Androids are now dominating over the IOS ecosystem, the same way Microsoft is dominating in the PC market.

As a result Apple is losing market share in the both the PC/tablet and the smartphone market segments.

A Seagate hybrid drive is not the same thing as Fusion. I am also not terribly impressed with the hybrid drive, but Fusion operates quite differently. Only time will tell whether it's as good as claimed.

Why should he consider your needs? How many thousands of computers do you plan to buy?

Apple does an exceptional job of serving the needs of people in their target audience.

Here's a clue - upgrade prices are expensive from all vendors. And Apple's upgrade prices are not insulting compared to what everyone else charges for the same item. They are sometimes on the high side, but not ridiculously so. Ten years ago, your complaint had some validity. It no longer does.

Maybe you should learn what 'bait and switch' entails. Apple offers a wide range of machines to hit different price points. They will certainly sell you the cheapest machine if you want it, but they obviously hope you'll buy a higher level machine. That's not bait and switch.

Yes, that's surprising - and very unusual for Apple. I'd be really curious why they didn't continue to offer the older model while the new one was being prepared. Sure, sales would have dropped off, but there would still be an iMac available to buy.

I'm still waiting for the part where you show us your experience that makes your opinion so valid. After all, you must know more about the design, manufacture, and marketing of computers than Apple does in order to make such claims, right?

Well, pity, because the iMac would have been awesome. If it came out in time (aka as scheduled). I love ya Tim Cook, but I gotta wonder what's going on. All the best, but, I don't know, I'm a little scared about this kind of stuff happening now to Apple.

Calm down.

 

it's clearly that Apple is growing to quickly and doing too much (look at recent "mistakes", like screatches on iphones, icloud problems, bugs on both OSes, etc.)

they should stop doing what isn't important to their ecosystem so they can focus on it.

 

They're STILL not selling a product called 'iMac'. I find it bothersome at best.

 

Steve Ballmer, get back to work. Maybe you can see why this idea is so stupid after yet another product failure. 

 

Hasn't even been a single month.

 

No one cares about that.

 

N~o… It's expensive because of the engineering, and fitting any computer of any size into that sort of box.

 

What does moving it have to do with making it thin and light?

 

The Mac Mini is a MacBook Pro without the screen. Are you suggesting that the screen in the MacBook Pro costs twice as much as the rest of its hardware combined?

 

You realize that's physically impossible, right? Heat.

 

That's not at ALL what Fusion Drive is.

Apple needs to be downgraded as quickly as possible. Down 7% YOY is a freaking disaster for Apple. Even if they made it up in iPads, it's still no good. Apple is definitely slipping away from dominance. I'm sure Dell will sell tens of millions of computers. Probably even H-P will, too. If Munster says Apple should sell a certain amount of product and fails to do so, then that's the end for Apple.

 

Still need an /s on the end of these. 

I'm still waiting for the evidence that you know how to run the company better than Apple does.

Are they perfect? Of course not. But they're the best out there - so you must have some pretty impressive credentials since you know more about running a multibillion dollar electronics company than Apple. So where are they?

 

Sorry, that's not the Apple style.  Keep up the price and screw with the market share.  The loyal ones will buy.

 

What's the implication here?

I'm holding out to see if next year Apple finally comes out with a Mac that meets my needs. The mini and the iMac don't yet the Mac Pro is overkill. I fully expect to be once again disappointed though. I will use my old Mac until it just won't cut it anymore (getting close to that) and have to leave Apple after 20 years in order to get the type of computer hardware I want.

The bummer is having to do without the OS I prefer. I'm not ready to risk a HackIntosh.

What's this? Someone using their computer until it doesn't do what they want it to do? NO. YOU DON'T EXIST. 😒

 

 

This is insane, though. I mean, really.

This is silly. Between the Mini, the iMac, the Pro, and all the laptops, Apple offers a nice range.

So what are your super-special needs that Apple doesn't meet?

True. Recession is hurting all computer sales, in general (though I believe some OEMs have reported growth compared to previous year, like Asus)... so I'd expect Macs to be hurt, to some degree at least. In fact, it seems logical to me that some people will lower their standards and opt to buy cheaper computer that will serve them good enough, in this economy.

I'd expect that this hasn't changed much in the last few years - Macs reliability - so that shouldn't start making difference now. I would expect, however, that hardware has reached level where everyday usage doesn't benefit from newer and faster. Last year, I gave my Core 2 Duo laptop from 2008 to my brother, and he is apsolutely happy with it. He is emailin, browsing, FBing, organizing his photos, other usual staff - YouTube, DivX watching... since that is where his interest in computers ends, I can see him using that machine for as long as it works. Add that to poor economy, and it might be IT.

I'd be surprised. If anything, release of iPad 4 should defer people from buying Air, not release of Surface. I don't think that too many - if any - Mac users would switch to Windows tablet, especially first gen unknown entity like Surface. If Surface and other W8 tablets are hurting computer sales, that would be Windows ultrabook and laptop sales predominantly.

Now we are talking... but there also might be some unforeseen reasons. I came across this by accident - a friend of mine, who is BMW enthusiast (being German from Bavaria) and Mac user, likes to repost BMW NZ FB posts. Following is one of them, and I don't have any clue how legit it is; I would likely doubt it if released by Apple competitors, but I cannot see a reason why BMW would do something like that.

Quote: Global RepTrack 2012 surveyed 47,000 people from 15 countries, including North America and Europe, ranking the reputation of the top 100 global companies. The Reputation Institute determined BMW as the world’s Most Reputable Company. Brand recognition and awareness are two of the most powerful attributes that identify a successful company – what other qualities make BMW world leading in your eyes?



Of course, this is BMW marketing... but if this is legit, Apple reputation slipped from 2nd to 5th spot in a year time. Google did even worst, going from 1st to 6th... but MS appeared from nowhere (below top ten in 2011, obviously) to 7th.

Is this possible? I believe so. This is 1st post-Jobs year for Apple, after all. Regardless of how useful Jobs was for Apple in the last decade, situation with company being associated with CEO on such level must cause some issues in public eye once CEO is not around any more... and Apple management did pull some moves which, if you are not one of Apple's faithful, can shake your trust in the company. In short, Apple is sailing through storm caused by Jobs death (even if that storm is only perceived in the eye of public), and there is not much to do but to endure through and rebuild company's post-Jobs image as good as possible.

 

I have a few suggestions:

 

1. Once a year at Thanksgiving the President of the United States chooses one product and grants it amnesty. Unfortunately this means the Turkey has to go.

 

2. At passover the Roman Governor lets the people choose one product to be spared from execution. Of course, sometimes innocent devices like the 17" MacBook Pro or iWeb will be crucified anyway, but then they go and sit on the right hand of Jobs.

 

3. Any product accused of not justifying its existence must be tried by a jury of its users before it can be discontinued. If the jury finds the product guilty it is discontinued. If they find it not guilty, production continues. No product may be tried more than once for the same quarterly sales figures.

 

4. Apple sells tickets for an annual lottery. The holder of the winning ticket gets to tell Jony what they want him to build.

 

5. War games. Parties interested in preserving a product field an army and go to war for it. Apple may choose to mobilize its own forces to defeat it. Several factions may all do battle at the same time, each for its own product. The winning army gets to keep its product. Coalitions will not be permitted as they may result in things like computers that are so thin they can't dissipate the heat of full speed drives and... um... oh.

 

Point taken, but I don't think I'm alone. Take the example of the 17" MacBook Pro. There's no question that I see way more 15" machines in the field than any other size, but ALL of the people I know personally who use a portable computer for creating visual content chose a 17. It wasn't discontinued because it wasn't profitable, it just wasn't profitable ENOUGH.

 

In a corporate culture driven solely by stock price, even good products are sacrificed for ones that generate greater growth. I think that's a little sad, and part of me naively hopes that the company built on the "Think Different" slogan might be willing to buck Wall Street a little to support the creative community, in much the same way I sometimes take less money to work on projects I like or with people I want to support.

 

Is that supposed to suggest I don't have one, or am I reading more into that than you intended? I hardly think my comment was over the top or even inaccurate, so if that's an insult I take exception.

 

 

 

As for storage, if I want more than 256GB it costs me at least $500 no matter what:

 

Choice 1: Pay Apple $500 for an upgrade, even though that's twice as much per GB as the OWC module.

Choice 2: Buy the OWC for $500 and use the supplied storage as a window ornament. There's literally ZERO resale market because there's only one model of computer in the entire world that can use it, and anyone who has that computer already has that storage module.

 

Perhaps you are more tolerant than am I, but to me that's a slap in the face.

 

Now they can choose a 15" and a 27" display. Two of them, if they want.

 

Ah, see, Apple isn't. So there goes your entire argument.

 

Ooo... that would be cool! I just need a bigger backpack. Way, way, WAY bigger. And a back brace. Hm, and maybe a little cart to haul around the generator, or do those 27" displays have batteries now?

 

Of course it is.

 

My argument stands on its own anyway. It is not dependent on the first condition being true to be true itself.

 

Except it isn't. We can do this all day. They've specifically stated that's not what they're about.

 

I know. Isn't it annoying when the other party simply makes a contrary statement without any support for their position? Nudge nudge...

 

 

 

When? Where? Who? How? Virtually every word of every conference call contradicts that. Apple's own remarks on the discontinuation of the 17" were that it just wasn't selling well enough (though I don't think they ever did issue an "official" statement -- it just quietly disappeared). Can you show me a quote or even give me an example of Apple's altruism towards users that did not benefit shareholders?

 

Spitballing here; 1996, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2011… More times.

 

Variety of locations, given the times.

 

Steve Jobs, et. al.

 

Orally and written.

 

HOLY CRAP, THE SHAREHOLDER CONFERENCE CALLS, DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR SHAREHOLDERS, TALK ABOUT SHAREHOLDER STUFF.

 

😩やれやれ。。。

 

Plenty of quotes out there, and Steve stated outright (maybe it was only on one occasion, maybe he repeated himself; can't remember) that he didn't care about the stock price. So I guess as a CEO, he's terrible in your eyes. There's also good one from 1993 that simply hints at it, and he's not even at Apple then. 

 

It was the foundation of how he worked. He didn't do it for the shareholders, period. He did it for the products and what they were. You can't really disagree with that. That they made money on every unit of every item they sold is just common (business) sense. Anything else from any other company should be considered unacceptable from shareholders, since that's apparently all they care about, too.

 

You'll notice Steve's dead. That's fine. He wasn't the only person on the planet—much less at the company—who cared more about the products than the stock price. Not to say that can't change, just that the tree will have to be uprooted rather than the seed planted, you see.

 

The answer to the question of whether or not financial success is a driving force at Apple seems to vary according to who you ask. On one hand you have Jony stating unequivocally that it is not:

 

“Our goal at Apple is absolutely not to make money,” he said in July. “Our goal, and what makes us excited, is to make great products.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/new-establishment/2012/01-tim-cook-jonathan-ive

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of this makes Apple evil, of course. They're not doing anything wrong. They're doing what any company that wants to make money SHOULD be doing. Which brings us back to my original point: decisions ARE made on the basis of what's profitable, not what makes users feel warm and fuzzy. Often the two overlap, and Apple's strategy is to make users feel warm and fuzzy in order to sell their products, but when a product line is only making $X and something else can make $X+, making users feel warm and fuzzy isn't enough to save it. All I said was that I *wish* reality was different so that I, and others like me, could still buy 17" MacBook Pros.

 

That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that by making the best products, they won't have to worry about making the money. The products will inherently bring the money thereafter.

 

Look at it like an entrepreneuring restauranteur. He has an idea for a new kind of restaurant, but he's worried about the money it would take to build and run it, so he doesn't do it. Tim's saying that he shouldn't be worried. If the idea is truly good, by its very nature it will bring in the required money, since people will be stumbling over themselves for this new eating experience. Just like buying new Apple products.

Steve has said—almost word for word—what Cook did. Which makes sense, given.

Tallest is nailing it, at least for me.

That is absolutely the best quote that I have heard that describes the post-Steve Apple. Not that it is doomed, but it's not business as usual. Or, actually, it is, now, business as usual.

Duh? PC sales are down, imagine what the competition numbers are

I think more and more users are looking to Macbooks, iPads and iPhones for their Apple fix. Mobile has taken off on all fronts, and desktops are slowing for everyone, not just Apple.

Point me to the mid range mid sized desktop Mac that offers me the choice of some internal expansion and the choice of monitor. Only the Mac Pro does that but it certainly isn't mid range or mid sized.

I might consider the mini but it will mean purchasing an external case to hold the additional devices I need. Which is really retarded when discussing a desktop computer. It would be like buying a small car and using a utility trailer hooked up to it each and every day in order to carry what you use all the time. Why not just buy a mid sized car to begin with that has the room you need each and every day?

 

I would jump all over a headless iMac. Put it in a case that is easy to open, has room for two hard drives and an optical drive (yes I really do use it) and let me choose my monitor. I would pay $1500 for that kind of Mac. Apple would make money because they would be saving them the cost of the built in monitor I do not want.

 

I have no need for a laptop and would never purchase one. I will admit that an iPad appears attractive but I need the desktop Mac first.

 

So many people believe that Apple offers a solution for everyone only because their own needs are met. There are many more that are either settling for a Mac model that is close but not really what they want, waiting, or switching.

 

I could buy an iMac and hate it, buy a mini and not be totally satisfied with it or chunk out big bucks for a Mac Pro and be pissed that I had to do it just because Apple refuses to offer a mid range product. I will wait to see what happens in 2013.

 

People will think me anal about all this but tough. I refuse to spend money on something that isn't what I need or want. Same way I'm holding out on buying any of Apple's iDevices. I don't really need them so why should I support Apple with purchases that mean nothing to me while I can't get the one product I really want and would really use? I came to Apple for computer use not music or phone calls.

 

I'm forced to use a windows machine at work and it isn't totally a bad experience but my heart is with Apple. Apple has the heart (OSX), the soul (good looking design) it just needs the right body (mid sized) to go with it.

 

I know it is out of my hands. Apple will do what it wants. I am just waiting to see if Apple still wants me as a customer. It might not.

 

Just go buy a PC already.

The quad mac pro is basically Apple's offering in terms of a mid tower desktop. It's probably not that expensive to make either. Some of the minis have a higher cpu cost, and the 5770 was never a terribly expensive card. I felt its pricing was largely to space it from the imac and pace it with the rest of the mac pro line, but there really isn't a great deal of spec difference (or component teardown cost) between that one and a mid range desktop. Obviously the heavy aluminum case costs something in materials, but we're talking about maybe an extra $15 (or less) in aluminum. The stuff is cheap, and machining cases is arguably a more costly process.

I'm waiting for the comment of...well if Steve were alive this would have never happened! /sarcasm

Add that to the WIP: Troll thread if you haven't yet.

...

When calendar Q4 2012 is reported next year the markets are going to slam Apple bad because no iMacs until December, again, only the iMac 21". Might be a good chance then to get in again under $600.

 

Even though I prefer OSX? I love the hardware, I love the software. I just don't like how it is packaged to where usability of something as basic as a desktop has been constrained.
 

Interestingly the newest imacs appear to have easier access, as the display comes off as a single piece. If this is by design, it was likely to facilitate repairs. I've read complaints about smudges or dust under the screen on repaired units. If the changes eliminate that as a point of concern, it does make them easier for Apple or their contractor to service.

I'm surprised iFixit doesn't have a teardown of the 21.5" model yet.

One report said it's held on with double sided tape, so I don't know if it's an improvement in repairability or not. The previous iMac cover screen was held on by magnets, which I found to be trivial to peel off. I don't know about the tape.