or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF - Page 4

post #121 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by geekmeat:
<strong>enough of this 970 talk already!
you people just dont get it do you?
if apple releases a G5 at MWSF2003 it wont be from ibm!
this is what i think apple stratagy will be.
the 970(IF APPLE IS GOING TO USE IT)will be for the VERY high end.
mark my words.
XSERVE will get these as will high end "workstations".
dont even think for a minute that you will get these babys in a computer for less than 2 coins.
capiche?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I sure hope you are wrong...Apple needs to dump Moto, and the sooner the better!
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #122 of 237
from listening to this G5 nonsense on these forums for the longest time (because i want one so bad even though it doesn't yet exist to consumers) i have learned what Apple's strategy IS... you must keep one thing in mind when figuring this out and that is this:

Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money... Apple is a corporation and thats what corporations do... therefore:

APPLE WILL NOT RELEASE A 970 THIS MACWORLD

what it will do is use whatever latest speedbumped G4 moto has come up with and push that for a while lets say its a 1.4ghz for the top end... Then when its time for another revision they'll do the same and push a 1.6ghz top end... and by this time they will have made quite a bit of profit from these two revisions and STILL have the 970 feeding frenzy to come.... Next they'll probably make another bump to 1.8 or something like that and then finally late 2003 or early 2004 will they release the 970 and it may be slightly earlier or later depending on other 64 bit competition...

Tell me, does a good player use his/her best cards at the begining of the game?
post #123 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:
<strong>

I sure hope you are wrong...Apple needs to dump Moto, and the sooner the better!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple doesn't need to dump anyone... They need to keep all windows of possibility open, and alwasy be prepared to jump ship on the best posibility. This is what Apple is supposed to be about, and this is what Jobs has been lately claiming: "we love options"

Apple should even talk to AMD about producing PowerPCs, because talking doesn't hurt anyone... I'm not saying it's going to happen, but they should be talking!!! Jobs would agree, and they have at least talked in Marklar esque areas...
post #124 of 237
Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.

That's the thing- most graphics people use quark somewhere in their workflow, or have customers to do. Sure, illustrators and others like them may have no problem, but that's a much smaller number of people than the entire industry. In an office, even if only a few people need to use quark on their machine, hte office is unlikely to switch because support would be a nightmare.

I really think that for alot of people, software ability is hurting apple much more than the availability of faster machines like those based on the 970. For large firms such as publishers, the purchasers probably don't know anything about these upcoming macs- they purchase machines to do a job, which the current ones do.

They will also only buy new macs if the existing ones need replacing- most macs released in the past 4 years are fast enough to run photoshop and Quark adequately in os9 for most users. The change to osX should drive a whole lot of new purchasing. The guardian Newspaper in London, for example is planning to purchase a brand new complement of machines when updating to osx, for example.
post #125 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:
<strong>In an office, even if only a few people need to use quark on their machine, hte office is unlikely to switch because support would be a nightmare. </strong><hr></blockquote>

In what way would that be a support nightmare?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #126 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by neovirusnine:
<strong>
Tell me, does a good player use his/her best cards at the begining of the game?</strong><hr></blockquote>

A good player uses the right cards at the right time. And a good player who has fallen way behind in a game starts to quickly play to catch up rather than playing lousy cards which don't need to be played.

The only question in my mind is if Apple has been dealt the 970 card already - and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it won't be able to play that card until at least the summer.

However, if Apple could put out a 970 based computer at MWSF you can bet that as a good company, they would.

Apple is spending substantially to try to convince people to switch to their platform. The chief concern is the perceived (and often actual) speed of their CPUs. The second concern is pricing. If Apple was able to play a one-two punch on the pricing performance issue, they would be ready to steal several share points while generating shareholder value.

Of course, they don't do this not because they are trying to slowly milk the market, but because they CANNOT. Motorola has been horrible in supplying and producing fast chips. Pricing on the consumer line has finally been addressed, but the differentiating value proposition of Apple (easily make movies, burn dvds, burn cds, organize photos) requires some expensive hardware (superdrives) - so getting the apple distinction is still expensive.
post #127 of 237
At the bottom of todays MacInTouch front page, in the specials section, a company called ExperCon is offering rebates on one powerbook and all three tower models.

Clearing out the channel???


Just a guess.
post #128 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:
<strong>Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>

See, this is what good rumours are, no good at all. Last rumour I heard about the Guardian is that they're going to switch the whole thing over to InDesign.

Whenever Quark is available, in some far distant future, there will be no rush to buy it - Quark's own figures speak for this (a little while ago they publicly stated that the majority of their customers were now using 4.x - wasn't 4.x released about three years ago!?) - there will be a slow trickle, until people have the confidence in XPress X. That will take 2-3 years.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #129 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

You just can't accept that people are using Mac OS X can you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't be a wally all your life, of course people are using it. What I'm saying, and you seem to think otherwise, is that Apple will *struggle* to meet it's 20% adoption target by the end of the year.

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>Don't you think that Apple does market research?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Market research? Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty. So if you can show me some of this published material that says the uptake of X is so great then it will be time for me to shut-up.

If you want to believe every bit of PR hype that you read, then fine. I beg to differ.

What we can see about about Apple's market research is that: they believe that X adoption is so strong that they've reassured their customers that 9.x machines will be available for at least another six months; that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption (Apple's K10 says "the forecast boost to sales upon the arrival of a native Photoshop largely failed to materialise").

Now you can believe what you like, but as far as facts go there are few on the ground. I'll go with what the discernable facts point to. If you want to go with the PR, that's up to you.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #130 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll vote with that man - XPress is a page-layout and production tool. Great that you can port your templates over. But can you port your production skills over so easily (answer: no, because the functionality that XPress power-users take for granted in XPress do not exist in InDesign - but who knows what the next version will bring).

If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.

(Note: Photoshop 7.x runs under 9.x, so there's nothing to encourage X adoption just to get its features.)
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #131 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by neovirusnine:
<strong>Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money... Apple is a corporation and thats what corporations do... therefore:

APPLE WILL NOT RELEASE A 970 THIS MACWORLD...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You write as if Apple is deliberately holding back the 970 - no tech-driven company could afford to do that, and it's shareholders would strangle it if they thought that was happening.

Apple needs to get the best machines it can out to the market as soon as it can. It may well introduce a high-end 970, while simultaneously producing a G4 tower, but there's no way it would hold back a 970 if it had the ability to deliver them.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #132 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty.</strong><hr></blockquote>

BS! Research is something you do to see how you're doing, and most of the times, the research is done internally with noone but themselves to cite as source.

I guess you haven't even been near someone who's trying to make business decisions.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #133 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>


[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>there will be a slow trickle, until people have the confidence in XPress X. That will take 2-3 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A little contradicting here.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #134 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

I'll vote with that man - XPress is a page-layout and production tool. Great that you can port your templates over. But can you port your production skills over so easily (answer: no, because the functionality that XPress power-users take for granted in XPress do not exist in InDesign - but who knows what the next version will bring).

If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.

(Note: Photoshop 7.x runs under 9.x, so there's nothing to encourage X adoption just to get its features.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with a lot of what you have said Clive, however not on this point. I know for a fact that some of the largest book publishing companies are researching InDesign/InCopy workflows right now to see how they compare with Quark, with the idea of saving time in the writing, editing, and production workflow. At least one of those publishers that I work with has stated that they were not impressed with Quarks current workflow solution.

There is also a large push into figuring out how to effectively use XML in this workflow to repurpose the printed material to the Web in a more effecient way. I think that this is going to be the key to the next big software adoption by these companies. This will, in theory, save publishing companies money to offset the expense. The skill to use these new solutions will come with time as the people learn new skills, and education teaches a new crop of professionals.

The thing to remember is that neither side is a winner yet. The timeframe to any major shift will take time, but it is starting now. Quark has some advantages; legacy files and skills, better prepress support, faster performance with older computers, just to name a few. InDesign has some pluses as well, in particular their PDF workflow which is making inroads into prepress houses, expecially where computer to plate printing is bieng used.

I would also place a countionary note about Apples place in these markets, if an Apple solution is no better than, yet costs sugnificantly higher than a Windows solution, then Apple may loose all or part of their core market. The ramifications of these decisions will shake the industry, as it trickles down to the venders that these large publishing companies use to get their books produced, from the writers, editors, designers, illustrators, cartographers, production workers, prepress and even printing plants (now that CTP is a reality).
post #135 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

BS! Research is something you do to see how you're doing, and most of the times, the research is done internally with noone but themselves to cite as source.

I guess you haven't even been near someone who's trying to make business decisions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right, research is something you do so you know where you're at. PR is something you do to tell other people where you're at.

You see the subtle difference?

If we get to see the basis of the "research", then we can get a feel for its veracity. If we don't have such access, then we're in the dark - and probably deliberately so.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #136 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

A little contradicting here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since you're in Copenhagen, I'll assume your first language is Danish, and your second English. I can't even begin to speak Danish so you're one up on me straight away, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, you're completely wrong in thinking there's any contradiction in what you quote - so I'll put that down to you not quite understanding what I've written.

First statement refers explicitly to InDesign: there's inertia in the market place because people do not want to switch applications (ie they have no switched to InDesign from XPress despite InDesign 2.0 being out for some time).

Second statement refers explicitly to a future version of XPress: there's inertia in the market place because even if Quark released an X native version of XPress people would not rush out and buy it (any more so than they have rushed to buy XPress 5.0).

Do you now see that there is no contradiction?
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #137 of 237
At the risk of sounding adversarial....Clive, I think you dilute your good points by making generalizations and conclusions that are not supported - I think that is why I keep feeling compelled to post opposing views despite my agreement with your general points.

So, you say: "Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty"

well, that is a very curious definition of research, and the previous poster was merely opining that Apple undoubtedly did some research before coming up with their OS X adoption numbers. I think that is by far the most reasonable conclusion (other than assuming they simply invented numbers).

You continued with: "What we can see about about Apple's market research is that: they believe that X adoption is so strong that they've reassured their customers that 9.x machines will be available for at least another six months"


I do not see this as contradictory with Apple's claimed numbers. For example - they specifically said they would offer EDU customers OS 9-booting hardware. Well, their own claim is a 50% adoption (for new EDU machines), which means 50% NOT choosing X. It seems reasonable to offer an OS 9 version to EDU in that case, yes?. And yet you claim the 50% number is inaccurate, and that offering OS 9 systems is evidence for that - I don't see the logic there.

"that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption (Apple's K10 says "the forecast boost to sales upon the arrival of a native Photoshop largely failed to materialise")."

Again, I think it is a stretch to say that the quote you give above shows that availability of ALL native software does little for Apple's pro sales. I would be interested to see how many more people switched to X full time after MS Office was introduced, for exmaple, or Matlab. I think that quote only demonstrates what it says - PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.

Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession


Fish
post #138 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>First statement refers explicitly to InDesign: there's inertia in the market place because people do not want to switch applications (ie they have no switched to InDesign from XPress despite InDesign 2.0 being out for some time).

Second statement refers explicitly to a future version of XPress: there's inertia in the market place because even if Quark released an X native version of XPress people would not rush out and buy it (any more so than they have rushed to buy XPress 5.0).</strong><hr></blockquote>


The reason for people not upgrading to QXP5 is that it doesn't have any compelling new features.

If QXP6 will have new features that customers actually will use, they will upgrade.

And btw. people ARE switching to InDesign.

I'm not saying that the majority is switching, but many are tired of waiting for Quark, and now that InDesign 2 has been out for a while, they are beginning to switch - and many will follow.

Earlier I gave you an example of two major Mac using companies here in Denmark that have switched to InDesign AND Mac OS X.

Furthermore The Boston Globe and The New York Times have dumped QXP.

[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #139 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>

I agree with a lot of what you have said Clive, however not on this point. I know for a fact that some of the largest book publishing companies are researching InDesign/InCopy workflows right now to see how they compare with Quark, with the idea of saving time in the writing, editing, and production workflow. At least one of those publishers that I work with has stated that they were not impressed with Quarks current workflow solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think there's a key point here, they're "researching" it. And they're absolutely right to do so. What will be their conclusions after their research, and what will be their conclusions 3-6 month's after any implementation?

We don't know.

In the areas you highlight I don't think that Adobe is doing any better than Quark. Quark has CopyDesk and QPS, I think these are of similar if not better quality to Adobe's tools.

The thing about Adobe is that they are great at throwing stuff out there, to get your interest... but when it comes down to the nitty gritty they don't quite measure up.

Here's one example of that, IMO.

Acrobat verans will have noticed that the "preferred" scripting language for Acrobat 5.0 is JavaScript. This sounds like a really neat idea, because it's cross-platform.

But while the scripting functionality on the JavaScript side has been expanded and improved, the AppleScript functionality is more-or-less where it was in version 2.0.

Now, should we care? Yes, on two counts: if you're a Mac workflow scripter your mainstream language of choice is AppleScript - you're going to have to learn a whole load of JavaScript to get up to speed with what you do now in AppleScript; in relation to this, if most of my workflow scripting is in AppleScript (Finder, XPress, Illustrator...), how do I make that work with JavaScript, how do a pass variables and data back and forth between the two environments....

So, while seeming to make life better for everyone, Adobe in fact makes life more difficult for implementors, bit more easy for their programmers (who only have to think about supporting one scripting language).


[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>There is also a large push into figuring out how to effectively use XML in this workflow to repurpose the printed material to the Web in a more effecient way...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I tend to agree with you, but, having been through this particular maze, I think that repurposing of content is not possible without a great deal of compromise.

Also, the last time I looked (about three months ago) Adobe was describing InDesign's XML implementaion as "in beta", and, believe me, XPress's isn't much better.

[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>The thing to remember is that neither side is a winner yet...</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know what, I don't want either one to win - I want them to work hard against each other for years to come, spurring each other on to develop better and better products.

[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>I would also place a countionary note about Apples place in these markets, if an Apple solution is no better than, yet costs sugnificantly higher than a Windows solution, then Apple may loose all or part of their core market...</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's my opinion that, right now, X is a difficult sell where Apple's traditional arguement is about total cost of ownershit - effectively ease of maintenance.

That ease of maintenance has gone down the drain with X.

What Apple still has, is good integration in the workflow: AppleScript, ColourSync, font management and rendering...

But, as you can see (my comments above), companies like Adobe are fairly mercenary about their own interests: implementing, effectively, their own private scripting language; maintaining colour management cross-platform between their applications, using their own font management and type rendering engines...

This dilutes the Mac/Windows divide and the the OS you end up using is effectively the "Adobe Publishing OS".
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #140 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>But, as you can see (my comments above), companies like Adobe are fairly mercenary about their own interests: implementing, effectively, their own private scripting language.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.

InDesign supports AppleScript in a big way, and the current versions of Photoshop and ImageReady are showing the beginning of AppleScript integration.

I would guess that the next version af Acrobat will have a better AppleScript implementation - perhaps I should ask around.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #141 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>The reason for people not upgrading to QXP5 is that it doesn't have any compelling new features.

If QXP6 will have new features that customers actually will use, they will upgrade.

And btw. people ARE switching to InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>

QXP5: the reason people aren't upgrading to 4.x is because it doesn't offer compelling features over 3.x (do you see a pattern here?).

QXP6: even if people do find compelling features in XPress 6.0 you can be sure that this application with not be X only: it therefore will not encourage people to adopt X. Furthermore, as I already stated (a couple of times), any adoption of a future version of XPress will take place over several years - so again will not help speed the transition to X.

The slow uptake of X blamed on Quark is a myth - if you believe it then that's your problem.

InDesign: Adobe's own figures state a 10% market share, enough said.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #142 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You'd really do yourself a great favour by reading more than half a sentance at a time, and reading the additional posts to which I refer.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #143 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

The slow uptake of X blamed on Quark is a myth - if you believe it then that's your problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not saying anything about blaming Quark for the slow uptake of Mac OS X!!

Actually I'm not seeing a slow uptake of Mac OS X.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #144 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

You'd really do yourself a great favour by reading more than half a sentance at a time, and reading the additional posts to which I refer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I did!

Jesus!! I'm not trying to disagree with you here.

I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #145 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong> PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's what I wrote, didn't I?

Put it in context.

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you're being pedantic. I'm writing my opinions, and at the same time pointing to other evidence that I think supports those opinions.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that I should accept Apple's PR on the basis of now further evidence at all?

It's in Apple insterests to overstate the uptake of X. It's not in my interests either way - I don't care.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #146 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>That's what I wrote, didn't I?

Put it in context.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's was his point: The fact that Photoshop for Mac OS X didn't make people buy as many new Macs as expected made you write:

"that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption"

You're generalizing.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #147 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

I did!

Jesus!! I'm not trying to disagree with you here.

I just commented on your post about Adobe favoring their own cross platform solutions instead of Apple solutions, and they're not!!</strong><hr></blockquote>


Adobe AppleScript has historically been very weak. The only application to support it in a major way has been Acrobat - but this has been diluted in the current version in favour of JavaScript.

Illustrator's AppleScript support was achieved by buying a plug-in from a third-party developer.

PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.

Adobe uses it's own buit-in font management and rendering engine (CoolType)

Adobe joined with Microsoft to develop the OpenType specification rather than use Apple's GX/AAT technology.

It's applications can use its own colour management solutions.

Can you tell me where Adobe is favouring Apple's tech over it's own cross-platform solutions?
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #148 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>You're generalizing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm citing the evidence!

Am I generalising any moreso than Apple's self-interested, unaccountable PR blather!?

If you want to believe that statement - then do so. I don't because there's nothing whatsoever to back it up.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #149 of 237
Originally posted by fishdoc:
PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.


Clive: That's what I wrote, didn't I?

Put it in context.

Me: The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps does little for Apples Pro sales. I guess I dont see citing Apples statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase as much as forecasted appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.

Originally posted by fishdoc:
Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession


Clive: I think you're being pedantic.

Me: Another point we can agree on.


Clive I'm writing my opinions, and at the same time pointing to other evidence that I think supports those opinions.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that I should accept Apple's PR on the basis of now further evidence at all?

Me: I say that Apple is in a far better position than you to assess how their sales are going, and you have offered no substantive evidence to the contrary (e.g., your argument about offering OS 9 machines is thin, as I pointed out). Again, you are one person with anecdotal evidence of how X is being adopted (in the UK, I presume?). One persons experience is likely to be quite biased relative to the general population, as evidenced by the professionals here who have seen

Clive: It's in Apple insterests to overstate the uptake of X. It's not in my interests either way - I don't care.

Me: all well and good, but having objective anecdotal experience doesnt make it any less anecdotal.


All the best,

Fish
post #150 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>PhotoShop's AppleScript support has been a joke, Adobe preferring to devote resources to it's proprietory "actions" scripting.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's actually much better in v7, and I don't think there is a single element in InDesign that you can't reach through AppleScript.

I happen to know people on Adobe's AppleScript team, and they are certainly not trying to make bad implementations.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #151 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

I'm citing the evidence!</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #152 of 237
I originally promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread due to the specious logic and horrific grammar of the original post, but geek.com has <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html" target="_blank">linked</a> to a new IBM page that features, among other things, a side by side photo of the 970 and Power 4.

Production is again confirmed for 2nd half 2003. This chip will NOT be at MWSF.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #153 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Originally posted by fishdoc:
The context was that you claimed that availability of native apps does little for Apples Pro sales. I guess I dont see citing Apples statement that a single app did not boost sales as much as forecasted as offering much (if any) support for that point, which is what I was pointing out by mentioning Office and Matlab. The fact that the phrase as much as forecasted appears in that sentence makes the claim even more tenuous, which is why I highlighted it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X. Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.

So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?

Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?

When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.

I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.

However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.

On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.

But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?

We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.

I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.

Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.

For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.

The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.

Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #154 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, actually two. You're basing your argument on one unverifiable, unofficial statement by an unknown person who claims to represent Apple.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #155 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:
<strong>Production is again confirmed for 2nd half 2003. This chip will NOT be at MWSF.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But maybe MWSF2004. :-)
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #156 of 237
Originally posted by JLL:

No, you're basing your statement on the result of ONE application.



Clive: No, actually two. You're basing your argument on one unverifiable, unofficial statement by an unknown person who claims to represent Apple.


Me: well, there we have it then - we can accept the word of Apple about how many people are using X, or we can believe Clive's personal experience (and arguments using facts that don't support them).

I guess it is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the best source of info.


Fish
post #157 of 237
Clive: I think I'm about done on this, but, please check through the thread, I made supporting comment on this: Apple cites Photoshop and XPress as major indicators of the ability of Mac users to take-up X.

Apple cites Photoshop on numerous occasions over many years as the benchmark in speed tests and as an indicator of Adobe's partnership with Apple. Therefore we have to, in balance, believe the the most important applications in Apple's universe are XPress and Photoshop - with reference to X anyway.


Me: Yeah, I think I am through here as well after this, as we seem to not be able to convince each other of the folly of the others logic. For example I dont think that the things you cite above mean that PS and Xpress are the most important applications in Apples universe. In my mind, that is the problem in your posts you state facts, but they dont necessarily support the arguments you try to make.

Clive: So, if there are other X native applications out there, does it matter when in Apple's own terms of reference it constantly wants to refer to these two?


Me: Yes, it does. You have to examine WHY Apple refers to those two (given that is true, which actually I am not confident it is). PS DOES get a lot of play at expos, but that could also be because for a long time it was an app that Apple could actually compete with Pcs in, as far as speed. And it IS also used lots by a big segment of Apple Pro users. But how many Pro users use PS, and how many use Office?

Clive: Does it matter when, according to sources who broke the news about later 9.x booting, this roll-back was at the behest of Quark itself?

Me: All this demonstrates is that a substantial portion of Pro users are not using X..that in no way conflicts with Apples own statement (remember? They said 20% were not 20% is, by anyones estimation, a big number).


Clive: When filing its K10 Apple has to be honest, otherwise it would be in trouble. It says that PowerMac (pro) sales are down 50% over two years. It says that its hopes that the carbonisation of one of its most important applications, its own benchmark for the adoption of X, has failed to deliver the sales it had hoped for.


Me: I missed where you demonstrated that PS was the benchmark for the adoption of X. You said that they cite it often as an example of the ability of users to go to X (without support, I might add, but lets assume that is true), but I am not certain that means the same as being the benchmark (in fact, I am certain that is NOT necessarily the same).


Clive: I think, my opinion, it's in Apple's interest to understate the "lack" of impact Photoshop 7.0 had.

However, two important and verifiable pieces of evidence paint a negative picture for X.

On the other hand we have Apple claiming 80% of pro users choosing X (not new users). There is no definition of what this "pro user" represents, or how the sample was achieved.

But, I think we have to assume that it's these same pro users who aren't buying new PowerMacs in the forecast volume. Right?

Me: True. Now, how does that prove anything? If Apple thought that PS 7 would increase sales, and it did not, (as much as forecast), how does that speak to the issue of X adoption? It only reflects the purchase (or lack) of new machines.

Clive: We have an additional citation that 50% of academic buyers are choosing X right now - and that 75% of them will be doing so by the new academic year (September?). Now I would expect that most academic purchases get done in the few months leading up to the new school year - so at best Apple's figures "right now" don't really represent a proper buying cycle.

Me: I am not sure what you are suggesting Apple should wait until next year to tell you what academic customers are currently buying?

Clive: I think it's in Apple's interests to overstate both the pro and academic adoptors.

Additionally this "statement" has no official status whatsoever: it isn't on Apple's web site as a press release and its source has not been cited.

For reference, when Apple wants to cite real evidence it employs third parties to do the reseach - for instance its total cost of ownership studies.


Me: Or, for example, when they claimed in a press release that X% of their iMac purchasers were switchersoh wait, they didnt cite methodology there either. In fact, I would argue that very few press releases say ANYTHING about methodology.

Clive: The balance of evidence, without my "anecdotal" citations, is that Apple's cited figures are nonsense. If they really had such great figures they'd be telling their shareholders (I've seen no mention of X penetration in the K10) and issuing press releases to let everyone know.

Me: None of this is evidence, this is your conjecture.

Clive: Please, offer evidence to prove my deductions false, and as stated previously, I will eat my words.

Me: That is the problem one cannot make specious claims and then say well, you have to prove me wrong.

I will reiterate my last post we have Clive, who is one person with his knowledge about OS X adoption (in the UKI am not certain how much of Apples business is based there, but clearly some folks in Denmark disagree), and we have Apples statement (as well as our own anecdotal info). Does that prove Apple is correct? No, but barring any real evidence, I would argue that Apples estimate is the best info we have.


Since we are getting nowhere here, feel free to email (fishdoc01@hotmail.com) if you feel compelled to continue.

Fish
post #158 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by tiramisubomb:
<strong>Another point makes it even clearer, Apple has been busy rebuilding its base and find new ways to increase market share. Their digital hub, coupled with IPOD, Firewire and now even iSync, Iphoto and iCal , all designed to tap into both everyday business and entertaining needs. With Apple, new software strategy and their new vision to capitalize into newer industry such as Hollywood (Final Cut Pro) and consumer video revolution (iMovie). They really need to stay ahead of time. And as you see, Apple retail store and overall sales outperform the PC market. However, their massive effort still only capitalizes 5% market share. Market share should be at least 10% by now. Doesn't that give you a signal, that something else is missing. There are two main reasons why PC users will not switch to Macs. </strong><hr></blockquote>

There are no indications that Apple is trying to increase market share. Increased market share does not guarantee profitability. Market share in itself presents ups and downs within a business strategy, and I'm not convinced Apple's game plan at this point is to increase market share.

As far as there being "two" main reasons that PC users buy Macintosh, there is, actually only ONE reason, which I may reveal later but is beyond the scope of this post. You may want to search for the topic "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" under any number of fora to see the multitude of answers being given.

&lt;--- best regards.
post #159 of 237
The only thing that threads regarding speculation of the 970 prove, beyond a doubt, is that the LAUB is desperate for faster processors.
post #160 of 237
Fishdoc, Clive: Don't kill each other...


Please keep in mind that Apple is a "public" company. Meaning that they have to watch what they say. Apple is NOT going to come out and say that slow Power Mac sales are because the processors are slow, they are way behind as far as memory and MB archtitecture are concerened and are a bit pricey especially when an ad agency who is running Dual 533's see's no reason to jump to Dual 867's. What they DO say is that people are "waiting for Photoshop to come to X..." "waiting for Quark to come to X..." that is marketing and publcitiy. They have to say SOMETHING...so that is what they say. Apple is run by some brilliant people...very brilliant and educated people. Do not think for a minute they are sitting around thinking that no one is buying Power Macs because Quark or Photoshop for X was/isn't out. They are completely aware of why no one is buying them and they for the most part are stuck because of Mot.

Also notice that the Power Mac has not made an appearance at a Macworld in a long while. That's because even with AltiVec current P4's are soundly kicking it's ass and you know Jobs loves the bake off. Do not expect any mention of a Power Mac at a Macworld until the 970 comes out. They probably will continue with the web upgrades.

I would bet that the G5 or whatever it ends up being called (the 970) will be an Apple special event,like the iBook, Xserve and iPod were.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF