Steve Jobs talks future Mac OS X upgrades, Mac sales, and more - Page 4

And thanks to them, we have a bigger navy.

How can it be hidden if you go to the counter, and the sales receipt says = Sales tax? VAT is hidden, because mostly (though I've sometimes seen +VAT in some ads.) all you know is the total.


I would have to believe that there are costs to Apple involved (shipping, distribution), and that the higher price is also due to the VAT, and possibly some import duties, or taxes.

Even here in the States, we sometimes see higher costs on one side of the country due to shipping.

Looking at both sides of the equation, the GPU on the Mac Mini ( the closest thing to a desktop ) is either a non-issue or a roadblock. For the majority of consumers / M$ switchers, the GPU will provide most of the functionality needed on a daily basis. For the discriminating power user, the GPU won't cut the mustard. Will Apple give these people an option...maybe as a CTO?

Myself I am waiting until the end of Oct to switch over to Mac from M$, quietly hoping Apple does upgrade the Mini (or it's rumored replacement) to a GM965 platform, with it's X3100 GPU...if not then it's Mac Mini for me (probably)

The again this discussion was about Leopard, future upgrade schedules and the fact laptops out sell desktops....my work's IT dept said it best.."people don't want desktops, they prefer laptops...our desktops are still sitting in their cardboard boxes they were shipped in..."

Just an opinion.

Well actually the news article linked to this thread also talks about "Mac Sales".

I don't believe a blanket statement that people just want laptops, I have never wanted just a laptop in fact based on the work I do a 24" monitor works very well for me, in fact two of them works even better.

I carry a laptop back and forth to work because I have too but when im at home I would rather use a desktop because why work on a 17" screen when I can work with 24" of space?

Also at the risk fo going off topic more I have never understood the bashing regarding MS or Dell when it comes to hardware and software. Apple does not compete with MS nor does it compete with any of the hardware vendors that run Windows OS. The simple fact is OsX is a closed platform it can only run on Apple hardware, as long as that fact reamain the only competition that Apple has is with its own ability to be innovative.

Apple hardware has always been way behind the cure but people like myself buy it to use their OS, fact is if OSX worked on a Sony Viao, Apple macbook pro sales would nose dive.

My Sony which has just as good of a hardware rep as Apple is at the same price point as a Macbook Pro, has a better GPU, full 1080p and a blu-ray drive, with an HDMI port. It will be the year 2015 before a Macbook Pro has that.

Fact is Apple hardware isn't any better than anyone else and they know it, it's the reason they keep OSX closed to Apple hardware only. I hear people dispute this but there is never any logic behind it. Macbook Pro's use the same ram, same gpu, same intel chip even the same battery as everyone else.

I think that has more to do with history between Dell and Apple, and MS and Apple.



Will it take a hit? Sure. Will it nose dive? I seriously doubt it. If you think Sony hardware is that desirable (compared to other PC laptop vendors), you're getting dangerously close to Sony fanboy territory

True, some people buy Apple systems for the OS and not necessarily the hardware. But for every one of you guys, there's a person who buys them for the hardware and not the OS. True, Apple hardware may not always have the latest and greatest innards, but they do have a reputation of being sturdy, reliable, and aesthetically pleasing. I'm not saying all of those claims are always true; but it is true that many people buy Apple hardware because of that reputation (and not necessarily because of their desire for the OS).

I've always found Apples "desktop" systems to be above and beyond conventional desktops systems when it comes to repairs, however I can't say my experience with their notebooks have been the same. I believe Apple always tries to fit 5lbs into a 4lbs bag just enough to create excessive heat issues.

Sony products have just always worked well for me, just a personal choice im sure there are people with horror stories.

There will always people people, maybe myself included that would by Apple hardware based on form factor, but overall I believe Apple hardware would take a major hit if OSX was openly available to install on your system of choice.

Apples hardware profit margins are huge, how many actually upgrade with Apple ram, not many.

Now if you took an HP notebook configured it exactly to the same specs as a 17" Macbook Pro it comes out about 1000.00 less. Sure you can debate quality but for 1000.00 there are going to be a ton or people willing to take that chance and buy a 3 year service contract something they already do with a Macbook Pro.

So yeah it is my opinion that hardware sales would drop sharply. I believe Steve Jobs believes that also, what other reason would Apple have not allowing their OS to be open to any system, logic points to hardware profits.

Well of course, for the most part, that is true (although there's arguably another very good reason, discussed below). It's been said again and again that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They make money selling Macs, not OSX. Take today's earnings report, a great example. They talked about how many hundreds of thousands of Macs they sold, how many millions of iPods and iPhones they sold. They didn't get into how many copies of Tiger they sold, because that's not where their main revenues are.

Again, they make money selling the hardware, and use good chunks of the profits for R&D on the OS (and other software), and that's why we get such a great OS for the relatively cheap price of $129. If Apple let other PCs freely run OSX, they'd basically be giving away their R&D for free. It just won't happen.

What COULD happen, is special licensing, where, e.g., certain VAIOs may run OSX, but OSX will never be just *open* to any system that's out there.


The other point, kind of related to the degree of openness of the OS, is support. One of the reasons Apple systems are so great is because of the tight integration between the software and the hardware. If OSX was open to all PCs, that would create the driver nightmare you see with PCs and Windows. Apple having control of both is, from a technical standpoint, a good thing.


Does that introduce a price premium on the hardware? Of course it does, but not nearly as much as it used to in the olden days. Apple just can't afford to be as arrogant with their pricing structure as they used to, especially not in this day and age where Macs' innards are basically identical to PCs.

My first post for a long time. \

In my view Apple has the right idea wrt the scheduling of OS revisions, and MS is wrong. Updating every 18 months means that the OS developers know roughly what the hardware will look like by the time they've finished. Taking 4-6 years to bring out an OS means, almost inevitably, that the first few years have to be thrown away because hardware development makes it redundant. So all development will happen in the final 18 months anyway, as happened with Vista.

And I don't believe anyone in their right mind wants an OS to be by subscription: the worst idea ever.

Proud to be a rhotic speaker in a non-rhotic land! Full stop.

Firstly, I would suggest that you get your facts straight. Apple's lowest expandable lists at $2200.

Secondly, just what would you do if Apple did come out with a desktop as you so described? What would you add? What would it finally cost?What would be the difference of your newly configured desktop and a Mac Mini? And would you expect that Apply fully honor its warranty with everything that you have done to it?

The honor goes to Karl Benz. And he was from Germany, just in case you didn't recognize the name.

The gap between laptop sales and desktop is closing.

From today's 8-K

Desktop Sales total Units: 817,000
Portables Sales total Units: 1,347,000

That's not 1/3rd Desktop and 2/3rds Portable.

Desktops: 37.75%
Portables: 62.25%

Q3 2007

Desktop Sales total Units: 634,000
Portables Sales total Units: 1,130,000

Desktops: 35.94%
Portables: 64.06%

The change(deltas) for both desktop and laptop were 29% and 19%, respectfully.

Will this trend continue with Leopard? Perhaps. If it does then Apple most likely will pay more attention to it's desktop market. However, not likely until Penryn and Nehalem chipsets are released for their systems.

The next major product upgrades that are overdue include the Mac Pro and XServe product lines.

The rumor of a new MacBook Pro coming out makes more sense when Intel ramps up the new Penryn which they claim run at only 25W.

Mac Pros and Xserves both use Xeons.

http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...e+rhc_45m_hi-k

Hell, Penryn was announced in January 2007 but won't be here until winter 2007 for use.

Next comes Nehalem which is already done.

This paper about Penryn includes what Nehalem will bring which clearly seems perfect for XServes and highend Mac Pros.

http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...whitepaper.pdf

Nehalems dynamic scalability delivers performance on demand through:
Dynamically managed cores, threads, cache, interfaces, and power All three platforms here
Leveraging leading 4-instruction issue Intel Core microarchitecture
technology (Intel Core microarchitectures ability to process up to
4 instructions per clock cycle on a sustained basis as compared to
3 instructions per clock cycle or less for other processors)
Simultaneous multi-threading (Intel Hyper-Threading Technology )
to enhance performance and energy efficiency
Innovative new Intel® SSE4 and ATA instruction set additions
Superior multi-level shared cache
Leadership system and memory bandwidth
Performance-enhanced dynamic power management
Nehalems design scalability will enable optimal price/performance/
energy efficiency for each market segment through:
New system architecture for next-generation Intel processors
and platforms
Scalable performance for from one-to-sixteen (or more) threads
and from one-to-eight (or more) cores
Scalable and configurable system interconnects and integrated
memory controllers -- Xserve.
High-performance integrated graphics engine for client platforms -- MacBook only? We'll have to see how well these system work, but

If Apple produces a future iMac that offers a BTO for it's GPU that isn't weak then that will most likely be what Apple does before it produces a separate mid-tower for the BTO PC user.

Penryn is supposed to do the following:


All of these improvements will make OpenGL operations increase without Apple having to make any improvements other than leveraging the radix 16 algorithm.

The vector engine improvements will remind people of another 128 bit Vector Engine. Perhaps this time we'll see it more completely utilized?

With Intel steam-rolling along it's clear that Apple's lines will have more updates than what we traditionally expect.

Whether this makes room for a change in the product matrix is up in the air. Sales growth will dictate this option alongside market feedback.

For as long as I remember, Apple's notebooks have outpaced their desktops, in growth and numbers, just about every quarter. I think I usually remember notebook growth often being two to three times that of desktop growth. Someone suggested that this bump was due to a new iMac model, which makes sense, it's the only variable in the desktop line that changed much this quarter. Someone else rejected that notion, though I don't understand why, I need to find that post.

But conversely, you have to pay the tax (unless you are in the minority and are VAT registered), so the price you see on the tag is the price you pay. You can go to the counter for a £14.99 product with £15 in your hands and will know you have enough money. We can work out exact change before we get to the counter.


If you take a look at my original comment in this thread, I have already ruled out VAT - both sides of the Atlantic, ex VAT, make for a $19 markup to the UK.


But that's just shipping costs - Apple doesn't change its base price at all. If there were a higher shipping cost then I'd understand, but we have to pay for that separately on top when buying online. Apple Europe is based in Ireland, and Dublin is closer to London (where I am) than Cupertino is to Los Angeles.

That's true, but you don't know how much is going to the government.

But, we have states with NO sales tax at all. You also know how much you're going to pay before you pull your money out. The difference there is that the government gets none of it.


And if you look at my comments in response, I said that there were other costs for Apple, one of which is shipping, others which may include duties, etc.


That's not what I mean. Shipping costs to the EU, over and above the costs to the US. It's a straight line from China and other Asian manufacturers to us. But, it's much further to the EU. Those costs are subhumed into the price of the product.

The list price of a product in California may be 5% less than the list price in New York because of cross country shipping costs. Some manufacturers average out the price, charging everyone 3% more. But others will charge the extra 5% where the shipping costs actually add in. We just see the list price, as it isn't broken out.

THEN, there are local shipping costs to contend with, as you understand.

Not if development costs are relatively low, which they would be. Sure, it costs money to introduce a new product line, but if they kept development costs down (which they could easily do), they'd have no problem covering those costs. A comparable product would be the ipod classic. They did minimal development for it, and minimal advertising - it's intended to fill a specific consumer demand. Have you seen a single TV ad for the classic? It wouldn't be a product like the iPhone that needs to take the world by storm, it's just another option for people who are interested in a mac.

I don't expect apple to have machines that are the same price as a Dell, but even if you take a dell and pad it with the standard apple 30+% profit, it would be half the price of a mac pro. Sure, it would sell better if it were more competitive with PC's, but the same is true of all macs, including iMacs and laptops.


Sure, they have a model that is selling. It's a good machine if that's what you want. But it's a machine with some big limitations, there are people who want a machine in that price range who would never buy a computer with screen attached, regardless of how good it is.


The iPhone is a good example of ignoring consumer demands. It doesn't include IM, custom ringtones, etc. Same with the touch, which doesn't do email or even notes, neither of which is a hardware limitation. Movie rentals on iTunes. Apple definitely has a product strategy, but there are unquestionably situations where it doesn't include giving customers what they want.


The iMac and mini aren't underpowered (although the current version of the mini is a poor value), that's not what people are complaining about. The problem is that neither has any expansion. With the mini you're paying $599 or more and the biggest hard drive you can get is 160. I'd be happy if they just replaced the mini with a unit that used a 3.5 inch hard drive, open drive slot, open pci slot, a couple more RAM slots and video card slot (used or not). They could easily do that at the same price points as the current mini (if not cheaper) with the money they saved from not having to use laptop parts.

First, Apple lists the mac pro as starting at $2499. To get to 2200 you have to customize it and strip it down. And 2200 is still exorbitant for the cheapest expandable machine.

Second, I'd add more ram and whatever big internal hard drives would fit in it. And it would allow the option of swapping in a HD optical drive (cheaply and easily) in the future. It would cost more than a mini (but less than adding firewire versions of those same drives to a mini, but with better performance) but probably half as much as the base Pro. And apple would absolutely honor their warranty, they're required to by law. You can expand a mac pro, why would they honor their warranty on that but not on a midtower?

If you take a comparable Dell, then the price is also comparable. If you take a cheap Dell, then it isn't. Compare like to like. It's already been done on various sites some time ago.

You can say that Apple doesn't compete with the cheaper machines, which is true, but you shouldn't be comparing them that way.


One can determine what customers want by the sales of the product. No product has what customers want if we use your concept of having what every customer would want in one product. It just doesn't happen that way.

Apple's product has much better features than the ones you mentioned for a large number of people. even though it doesn't yet have what I want, I can see that.

Ok, I've been quiet long enough,

Please tell me where you are finding this HP that has the exact same specs as a 17" MacBook Pro for $1,000 less? Because I'll tell you, I just spent an hour at HP's website and I just can't find it. Not to metion I work for a computer store that sells both HP and Apple equipment. I know we sell a lot of HPs that are $1000 less than a MacBook Pro, but they are no where NEAR the same specs. Most of them don't run a processor more than 1.8 GHz with 2 MB Cache, (nothing like the 2.4 GHz with 4 MB cache that the MBP has, video cards in those HPs are generally laughable. And most of them rarely come with more than 1 GB RAM. The beauty of the 17" MBP is that you can usually order one without having to add anything to it. I feel these machines are seriously configured nearly perfectly.


On other comments that have been made: everyone clammering for a desktop Mac, sure, I have no doubt that there are people out there that will buy it, but how many really? They had desktop models for years and they didn't sell any better than anything else, the iMac outsold it and the PowerBooks outsold it. Would I get one....hard to say, I've got a Mac Pro because I do things that use that power, but I also am not concerned that I won't get 7-8 years out of this thing before it is no longer viable. I'd have replaced a PC desktop at least twice in that time.

And for Apple to release one they will need to design a whole new board, because they cannot simply adapt something they already have. They'd also need to have enough people out there developing components for the Mac to allow for expandability, and really, what are you going to expand on this thing? Add hard disks perhaps? maybe upgrade video cards (if you can find one that is compatible) history has shown that there really aren't ever any video card upgrades available, for years with the G4 desktops I have only seen one viable video card upgrade and they wanted $700 for it and it was based on a GPU that was pretty long in the tooth. Other than those parts what are you expanding on that computer.

Don't fool yourself into thinking PC desktops are all that expandable anymore either, I just opened a brand new HP desktop yesterday to add a customer's old hard disk to it. To my horror I opened the case and found absolutely NO IDE channels. The hard disk and Optical drive was SATA, and there was NO IDE ports on the board, so I thought, "OK, I'll add an IDE card and install it, well guess what, there was only 1 PCI slot and it had a modem in it. I did laugh however when I noticed there is a Floppy drive port on the board and it was still using PS/2 ports. The Video card was an integrated Intel 950. There was a PCI-Express slot, but with the 250 W power supply you aren't adding much of a video card without also upgrading the Power supply. It had 4 USB 2.0 ports and a Firewire port, so basically, it was a Mac mini (exept with a much slower processor, and no wireless) I thought to myself, "this must be a $400 computer" so I looked at the sticker on the box. $749.99 I called the customer to let them know that I can't plug their old hard disk into the new computer because there was no way to plug it in, I guess he can put the drive into a drive bay and plug it into the USB port. My point is this computer is no more expandable than a Mac mini, but it has a Desktop form factor and costs more.

There are plenty of machines with better specs than a mini for less. I am comparing like to like. Honestly, I think a major reason apple only sells the mini and iMac in those price ranges is to confuse customers and try and discourage direct comparisons to PC's in those price range.


You can only determine customer's overall reaction to the product. It doesn't mean that there aren't things that people are unhappy with, and that could potentially help the product sell even more.

MacCentral has some great charts in their quarterly report write-up:



It looks like while laptops are far and away selling better than ever, on a yearly basis desktops haven't done much since the original iMac debut. Yes, laptops are very popular, but Apple really needs to examine why they lag the industry in % desktops sold and why many who want a mid-range desktop they can use with high-end graphics cards and their existing monitors need to go to Dell instead.

So you give up on your argument about the Mac Pro? You must have, since you switched to the Mini and iMac which wasn't the discussion you started in that paragraph, and I responded to.

The Mini and iMac are very different machines. As the above poster has explained, just because a PC seems to be upgradable doesnt mean it is. Dell, for some reason, sends me catalogs on an almost weekly basis, though I've never bought anything from them. I can tell you that even $1,000 machines have built-in graphics. he machines are also very cheaply built. If that's what you would want, then that's fine. But they certainly aren't a better bargin. And their cheap machines are truly junk.


No. You can judge sales. That's the only thing that matters. That and the industry leading satisfaction rate, which far exceeds that of any other phone maker.

I suspect not completely like-for-like. If you take away the size constraint, I imagine that's true, but I have not seen a mini-like computer that's cheaper than a mini.


That's the tough part. Apple doesn't seem to like having more than one Mac model at any given price point, even separating their price ranges by a fair amount unless you order extra options. The funny thing is that they are doing just that with their iPods.

Obviously that desktop isn't a great deal, but being equivalent in upgradability to a mini? You can upgrade the optical drive to a next-gen drive, the 3.5" HD bay accommodate faster hard drives that are four times the size (and there probably was more than one bay). The case can likely be opened with a normal screwdriver without fear, many cases without tools at all. $70 for a power supply and $130 for a graphics card will make that machine run graphics faster than any Mac besides a Mac Pro.

Also, you didn't think of using one of these or informing the customer they can get one:
http://www.cooldrives.com/serial-ata...e-adapter.html

If you can't take a honest look at the technology, both the good and the bad, it'd be better if you avoided the PC customers. They might be better served by someone else.

When Apple pulls old ports out of new machine designs, they are heroes for advancing the market, but when PC makers pull IDE, that's bad...?

Yes, yes, you can, but my point is this is by no means the first time I've seen this in various PCs, Yes it was wrong to compare it to the Mac mini as far as upgradability, but the specs on the Mac mini were better at that price point than what this machine was, and it truly is a crippled machine put in a case that makes it look upgradable. Almost any HP we sell now we have to add things like upgraded PSUs just to add a video card, and in many instances could not add the drives the customer wants because the boards don't accomodate them. Lacking in IDE or in one case having only 2 SATA ports on the board. And when you look at the computer from the outside you think "I'll be able to upgrade this system in the future", but when it has 4 PCI card slots on the case and only 1 on the board, that is just poor design. And frankly a poor representation of what you really are getting. And they don't usually tell you on the specs what is there for future expansion. This is why I do more custom builds for customers than customize off the shelf systems.


It was my second thought after seeing the only PCI slot was full of a modem.....a freaking modem. Gotta have them in stock before I can use them. Are you also aware of how flaky they are? We don't have them in stock because half the stock replaced the other half that had been returned because they didn't work right.


I can take an honest look at technology, after working on that HP last night I question whether or not they can. I am MORE than qualified to work on PCs, my point is, I'm seeing the PC market cut corners like crazy. and on things that don't make sense. Why take out the IDE, put no USB headers on the board but still include a freaking Floppy port? And the 200 W Power supplies are simply rediculous. They definately aren't following user trends. They have definately gone to building disposable computers. I don't disagree at all that I wouldn't be excited if Apple were to add a prosumer desktop I would be, but after seeing Apple outsell expectations by 200,000 units in the last quarter and pick up marketshare where others are losing the question is, do they really need to add another model? They already have more models than they ever have since Steve came back, he gut the model lines when he got back, when Sculley was running the show they suffered from having too many models, Anyone remember the Performas? It was confusing to look at especially when the numbers made no sense the 7400 was more powerful than the 7500 and really what difference was there between the Power Mac 6500 and the Perfoma 6500? So what if they are selling more notebooks now than desktops? The desktop/laptop line gets blurred everyday. When Apple pushes out specs in notebooks that put most consumer PC desktops to shame why wouldn't I get the notebook, especially when expandability isn't formost on my mind. Am I surprised, after seeing the price point of the Mac Pro that notebooks are outselling them, no, It is too expensive for the "average user" (although they cost the same as a mid range G4 Tower at the time they were new). but really a great deal for the Pro Users. They are very competative in that market. And so far the only machines I've seen run Windows better than these computers are ones I have custom built.


No, Apple pulls them when they truly aren't necessary or are setting a trend, not just to save money.

Okay, whatever. Same argument. What side of the road do the Germans drive on? My point as that the "full-stop"/"Period" argument was (how shall I say it?) POINTless. Bwahahahahaha. Pun very intended.


Amazing graph. The question we should all be asking is WTF happened to desktop sales in 2001? I have a hypothesis. Pre 2001, Apple sold desktop machines (non-iMacs) for as low as $1599... reasonable for a PowerMac. In 2001, they started jacking up the prices. They debuted the Quicksilver, lowest model @ $1699; followed by MDD, again at $1699; followed by PowerMac G5, starting at $1999; followed by a string of G5 upgrades starting at $1999; followed by the Mac Pro, starting at $2199; followed by the Mac Pro starting at $2499.

Between major releases price cuts did bring costs down, but for short amounts of time only. It's clear, however, that Apple has been slowly pulling the PowerMac / Mac Pro away from mid-range users. If you look again at the graph, you see an increase in portable sales every year (except '99). You SHOULD see the same in Desktop sales. Yes, I know that things are shifting towards portables, I'm not stupid, but it's not shifting this quickly. In the PC market, people have access to as many cheapo laptops as they do cheapo desktops. Their numbers quote 50/50. 95% of the population doesn't lie. Apple's product line is dysfunctional.

-Clive

Lowest price is still $300 lower than you stated. And isn't that exactly what you want Apple to do?


So give me the cost breakdown. By the way, what processor are you suggesting? And at the end of the day, could you speculate on its benchmark scores, you speculate on everything else.

As for the warranty, I expect Apple to fully honor their contractual obligations. However, as under law, they have the right to refuse such if it can be deemed that a non-Apple certified product or service person may have caused damage and thus nullified the warranty. For example, it has been shown that some low-cost RAM can cause excessive heatbye, bye warranty.

And which side does nearly a quarter of the world drive on?

And in the US as well: There is a rather dramatic segment of Interstate 5 where one drives on the left. It is on the Five Mile Grade coming into the Los Angeles area from the north. Because there are four lanes going in each direction, the separation is several miles long, and the two roadways are on opposite sides of a canyon, the effect is quite impressive.

In Providence, Rhode Island, the off-ramp from Interstate 95 north to exit 18 (Thurbers Avenue) spilts and if you bear to the left, you're driving on the left for about 500 feet. At the end of left side driving, there is a light for crossing.

My point. You are an idiot.

Try again:
Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot 1769 STEAM / Built the first self propelled road vehicle. French
Robert Anderson Circa 1832-1839 ELECTRIC / Electric carriage. Scottish.
Karl Friedrich Benz 1885/6 GASOLINE / First true automobile. German

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html

Henry Ford, American: First mass production of automobiles

Of course, being "current" in Vista terms means that in 2010 you are still stuck with the archaic product they have now. (BTW- it would actully be 500 to 387 bucks as by 2010 you would have upgraded to the next 250 dollar Windows 7)

Rapidly releasing incremental upgrades of functionality lets Apple incorporate market requirements more quickly, and change direction as their customers' needs change. They can also incorporate new technologies and features faster. If they suddenly started taking most of a decade to issue a major release, they would completely lose contact with their customers. When they finally did ship the software, it would be the solution to problems users stopped caring about five years earlier.

In such a scenario, they'd be basing their decisions on outdated customer feedback and expensive-yet-useless focus groups and other marketing flimflammery. In other words, they'd be M$: the proud owners of a bloated dinosaur.

Keep up the speedy releases, Apple. Don't give yourselves time to start "thinking the same."

I'm a pro use of Apple computers, and just got the MacBook Pro to run Logic and AfterEffects while I am on tour. So far it's just as speedy and stabile as my dual 2gig G5 tower (which granted has grown a bit long in the tooth!)

A friend of mine who is a professional mastering engineer and electronic composer bought the latest iMac upgraded to it's fastest configuration and he said Logic Pro runs amazingly fast on it. Not sure if you could edit a feature film, but if you are on that level chances are you have a budget to afford a work station.

I'm so surprised by people complaining about the new Macs. There certainly seems to be something for everyone in the line!

The reason Apple does hardware is not because they want to be a hardware company/ don't want to be a software only company. They look at the hardware and software as a complete package and want to have full control on either side.

Look at the WinTel picture: if you are a hardware vendor and have a bright new design idea you have to wait for MS to provide support for it. It will take long time (if ever) and you will lose your competitive advantage. You may try to hack the system with your own drivers but other driver/software or OS update may break it. You introduce a new processor architecture but no Win support -> no way to go mainstream. It is true the other way around: You want to get rid of the floppy drive and/or get USB support - hundreds of vendors resist or take the "wait and see" approach. It is catch 22 situation.

The examples you give are of very rare occasions.

There's almost no way that a new processor architecture will be developed and get major acceptance. Windows did support MIPS, ARM, PPC and Alpha but it still doesn't matter.

I can't think any piece of hardware or circuitry currently in a Mac that isn't being used or doesn't have an equivalent in the Windows world. Your examples are about ten years old now - which shows that it doesn't happen often enough to be a worthwhile argument. The only example of new hardware technology is actually software - EFI firmware. Since almost no one touches the firmware, its influence on the typical user is practically nil.

I think the real reason is the money. It's the hardware that it's biggest cash cow. A software-only Apple

That "delusion" has just allowed their market cap to surpass IBM's.

Apple's sales trends are overall higher than the industry average. Their laptop sales trends are through the roof.

Exactly - their laptop sales are through the roof. The "AIO delusion" is referring to the desktop situation, which isn't quite so rosey. They did well last quarter with the brand-new iMac, but it remains to be seen if that will be sustained. Looking back over a longer period, their desktop lineup has failed to deliver to the same extent that the laptop lineup has.

It'll be interesting to see how Gateway's and Dell's new AIO iMac-a-likes do. Does the market as a whole want this form-factor or will the Gateway and Dell machines crash and burn?