Jobs responds to outrage over MacBook's missing FireWire - Page 34

Not necessarily. We had a lot of switchers who bought the original iMac and clamshell iBook. Most of them bought a windows machine for their next computer. If you think they people are joining to become part of the Mac community, you're kidding yourself.

They could really care less if they were running, OSX, windows, or linux as long as its perceived as cool and matches their iPhone/iPod. The ones who are repeat buyers are the ones who buy one for the superiority of the platform and software and up until recently the reliability of the hardware. They bought Macs no matter what Apple's image was. These are the ones that Apple risks losing because they're putting all their effort into image and very little into the platform. Apple rarely innovates anymore on the computer side. They're routinely behind on technology where they used to be in the fore front. Its all about making a computer that's a little bit smaller with a glossy screen.

I get the feeling that when you say "professional", what you mean is "media professional". All of your examples are from that world, anyway.

There are plenty of programmers and managers who want solid, quality laptops but also want them small, low weight and long on battery life.
Raw CPU power, GPU power, color correctness are not huge concerns for this group.

I don't count myself as a pro, but I share those priorities. The 12":s were the last Apple hardware that was designed to fit them.
Incidentally, this year I also bought my first Windows desktop in ~8 years. OS X' value is not infinite, and the gaps Apple has built into its hardware lineup are not small.

You have a very low opinion of new Apple users.


The eMac, was criticized heavily the last year. It was in need of being replaced by something newer.

The PowerMac? You're kidding!

Are you one of those cavemen who think Apple should have remained with the PPC, even though it was a losing proposition?


I've said many times that their pro lines, and business software and consulting, prop up the losing consumer division. So now you want Apple to emulate that heavily discounted concept that's been dragging Dell down?

What a GOOD idea!


I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.


So, even though you weren't happy about the performance of the Powermac, you're sorry to see it gone?


Forget about crying about the Powermacs. They are dead and gone, and that's good.

But, I was one of the very first to call for a mini tower. I even gave plans to a couple of friends in Apple's engineering management.


You don't know what you're talking about.

Again, you're making things up, and don't know what you're talking about.

Do you have any numbers to prove that "most" bought a Windows machine for their next computer, or is this something pulled from your imagination?

Look at Mac sales and profitability from 2001 to the intel switch. It doesn't take to genius to figure out the switchers didn't stick around. You don't seriously think they didn't buy another computer between the iMac and an intel machine do you?

I don't know what you're trying to show here.

Apple did pretty well during the switch.

Show the numbers you're trying to discuss. Then we can discuss what happened.

Most of the newer ones haven't given much of a reason for a high opinion.


Because of the G4 chip. Instead of replacing it, they just plain dropped it.


You're using Apple's change in naming conventions to twist things here. Let's make things easier here and I'll give you a name conversion list.

PPC: Mac Mini
Intel: Same
PPC: iMac
Intel: same
PPC: eMac
Intel: dropped
PPC: PowerMac
intel: MacPro
PPC: iBook
Intel Macbook
PPC: Powerbook
Intel Macbook Pro.


No, I'm saying that Apple is popular and has consistent margins, they're not subject to the same pitfalls as Dell. Apple probably makes as much on Mac Mini (even at the old PPC price points) as Dell does on three inspiron desktops. on the flip side, they make much more money per each workstation than Apple does on a MacPro. But we're not talking margins here, we're talking about products gaps that were previously filled.

[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.[quote]

They sure do now. If you're an entry level buyer, you buy a MacMini. If you're a consumer, you buy an iMac. If you're professional you buy a Mac Pro. Consumers need only dual cores and two DIMM slots, anyone who needs more must need a workstation.

On the laptop side If you want a smaller notebook, you must be a consumer and need a Macbook if you need a larger screen, you must be a professional. These are all black and white choices with no overlap based what Apple and Apple alone thinks you should need.


You're once again using naming conventions to twist things.

There is more to a computer than just a CPU. With a PowerMac line (read Mac Pro) you had had expansion slots, you had multiple drive bays, you had an additional pair of DIMM slots, you could choose your video card, and you could choose your display all for an affordable $1299-$1699. With the iMac now being the only choice Apple makes all those decisions for you and if Apple is wrong, than its just too bad. They don't really care if you're ability to do tasks is diminished. And make no mistake, I did not buy the iMac because I love the elegant simple design. I bought it because the current incarnation of windows sucks and I have so much invested in the Mac platform that it would not be an easy move.


And that makes Apple's complete elimination of tower options under $2300 somehow alright? How much do they have to take away before you start to lose faith in them?


Because I bring a voice who doubts some of Apple's decisions? Who sees a qualitative difference between a switcher and someone who choose to use a Mac because it was (at one time) a better platform? Who sees that Apple is making a lot of decision based on hype and herding that have the potential to significantly hurt its standing with the base?

I'm sorry I got outside the RDF and took advantage of the think part of Think Different. Apparently independent thought isn't tolerated in the Mac platform anymore. It's all about what we can do to serve Apple and Steve Jobs. It has nothing to do with a superior computer to serve your needs. You need to go to windows for that right?

http://www.apple.com/investor/

Read the earnings releases and google Q4 2000 when Mac sales started to decline.

I'm trying to show that if you bring people in on hype, they are much more likely to switch back than a Mac user who is here for the platform. You seem to think that once a person owns a Mac it is somehow impossible to switch back.

Truth be told, my next computer is going to another PC, running Win7/Liunx, as Apple isn't offering what I would like in a computer, and pricing themselves out of my budget. Right now (and when I bought it), my Mini was the only headless Mac under $1000, and a similarly priced PC would just destroy it in terms of features and expandability. And no, iLife isn't that amazing, lets not kid ourselves.

I don't even need anything high-end anymore, but give a decent headless desktop, with an i7 Intel desktop CPU, easy to access internals, with big and fast HDs, 4+ GB RAM support, dedicated GPU. and there would be no problem. Price it for $1000-1200.

It just seems like Apple has a great OS, but worse and worse computers to back them up, it only seems to be thinness and glossiness that are important anymore. Apple has a very narrow view of the market, and they know that as long as people need/want to run OSX, they can sell people whatever they want, and they'll accept it and put up with it.

I see.


Schools were moving to laptops. Here in NYC, a laptop lab is the preferred method of buying computers for K-12. What they do is have a specially designed cart on which the laptops are kept. The cart is moved to the classrom where the computers are needed. There could be up to 36 laptops per cart. Mostly Macbooks, or similarly priced PC's.

The need for the Education Mac is no longer here. The eMac no longer had a function.


What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?


Profit is very important. Apple doesn't have the expensive workstation and server market that Dell does. Neither do they have the business consulting services.

They have to make a proper profit on all their lines. That's the proper way to do it.

If a machines doesn't fit within their targets, they should drop it.

[quote]
[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
You mentioned iPods. I didn't. So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.

Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.

High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.

What's your problem here?


No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.

When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?


First of all, you should stop using the word "had". As far as I can tell, the Mac Pro continues to have all the advantages of the Powermac, except that it's a much better computer.

The Powermac at the $1299 price was gone long ago. The cheapest one was several hundred more than that before the Mac Pro arrived.

You have to take inflation into account as well. Apple moves the price of its machines up and down when new ones replace the old, depending on what they are offering.

Since only a very few ever do more to upgrade their machines than add memory, and most people don't even do that, the iMac is more than enough for most people in that price range.


Look at their sales. That's what matters, not theoretical desires.

A company is allowed to decide what products they want to put out. It's up to the potential customer to decide if those products suit them.

So far, Apple seems to be making the right moves. I don't have to agree with all of them.


No. Because you are making assumptions about numbers and thoughts of others that you don't know. You are trying to fit others into your line of thinking.


The idea about RDF is cute for those who want to think they are special because they are too good to be caught in it. But, few people are taken in by this "RDF" in the first place.

It's narrow thinking to believe that those who agree Apple makes pretty good moves aren't capable of thinking on their own.

I have very good reasons for what I think. You may not agree, but perhaps you are a victim of the "anti-RDF" hmmm?

That doesn't explain your statements. We know there was an earnings decline then. There were numerous reasons for that. It doesn't mean that most people who had bought a Mac right before went and bought a PC instead.

Right at that time, there was a market crash, and a recession, which took a year to wind up. That little economic difficulty had a lot to do with it.

Apple was also going through a transition to OS X, which was late, and so had people waiting to buy new machines. I suppose you forgot about that as well.

The entire industry was in a slump then.

One main reason was that before 2000, there was the scare about the dating. Remember that most computers just used the last two digits in that year date. Because of that there was massive upgrading all across the industry, even to a certain extent including Macs.

Once the 2000 transition was complete, IT budgets came crashing down, as did the budgets of consumers who had also upgraded.

This is in addition to the stock market crash and the recession.

Every time Apple made a big transition, people held off to wait for the new technology. That's normal. We even tell people here to hold off when we think Apple is about to update machines, though that's minor.

When Apple was moving to intel, the quarter right when the change occurred led to just a 5% increase in sales, from a 30% rise before.

Why? Trepidation over the new machines. The next quarter led to an 11% increase. The next, 20 something percent, and has been higher ever since.

I suppose you could look at that time, and think that massive numbers of people shifted back to PC's, but you would be wrong about that as well.

So, if you're going to try to account for something, know what you're talking about.

You're going to have to wait at least 6 months, if not 9 months to get what you want—if you can get it at all.

And for the market iLife is intended, yes, it is that good. You're just not that market.

He gave you explicit examples (hint: consumer laptop - small, pro laptop - large). What's the problem you have in comprehending them?

People don't just wake up and want to blow $X on a computer, any computer. Having "a computer for every price" is meaningless.

What's your problem in comprehending my answer?

Are the Macbooks as large as the MacBook Pros?


He mentions the several iPod lines, and then says that there is one computer line. That's clearly wrong.

Look, you don't have to buy a Mac. There is no law requiring that.

Apple offers what they do because most people they think will buy their machines will be happy with the choices. Going by the increase in sales they have had, there's good reason to think they're right.

But if you're expecting a 1,000% increase in sales if these other machines are offered—good luck with that!

don't stress it
on this forum there are at least 2 ways of looking at the world

1. assuming apple is right and fitting facts to justify every apple decision
2. liking apple but somehow finding the facts not fit all of apple's decisions (or products)

number 1 people quite often shoot at number 2 people, despite a common interest

examples under viewpoint 1.
a. if apple fails it's clearly not apple's fault:
there must have been a recession, a war, a .com bust, a short supply of components
a soviet plot, some illegal activity on the part of microsoft, the chinese or the government etc etc

b. if you find a problem with your apple product it's clearly your fault:
you must have dropped it, you don't know how to use it, you're stupid, you're aggressive
you are pulling a warranty scam, you're a non-believer, you work for microsoft, you need glasses etc etc

and ironically, depsite a number of those with viewpoint 1. having been around
when apple hit rock bottom a while back (for reasons which were obviously not its fault)
they confidently believe that it could never do so again
because they never make mistakes, and can read the market fully...

and clearly if there is any future drop in notebook sales
it wouldn't be anything to do with the latest release - the blame is quite clearly the recession
(which apple has expertly planned for)

summary: all arguments against number 1 viewpoints are futile
(quite simply because you're wrong to even ask that sort of question)

So you *honestly* didn't understand Ben's point?

Here it is spelled out. Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.

You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right. Microsoft can do no wrong either, I guess.

This argument got old years ago.

You're doing what he's doing, which is ignoring the entire world, and relying on Apple as your certer point.

Apple make lots of mistakes. no one has acknowledged that more than me.

But, things they do are not always wrong because a few people think so.

And problems they may have can be their fault, but not always.

The problems in the 200o to 2002 period were related to outside forces that they had no control over. If you look at the industry at that time, you would see that.

Or you could just ignore it and live in your own little world.

I understood his point. But you don't understand mine.
Mine is that Apple is doing what is working well for them. The Macbook is one of the most popular laptops around. It's small enough for most people.

The fact that Apple doesn't offer a smaller one doesn't mean that they need to do so. Perhaps they do, but we don't know that.

We do know that they won't get into the "cheap and small" category.

They MAY come out with something bigger than an iPhone, but much smaller than a notebook, or they may not.

They did have the 12" Powerbook, but apparently, it wasn't selling that well.

Just because some people want something doesn't mean that it will sell in large enough numbers to be profitable. Remember the cube?

If you have actually read my last few posts, you would see that I don't say that every decision that Apple makes is right.

You don't seem to know much about what I say. Enough people here have called me an Apple hater because of my criticism at time.

errrr Mel ???
oh nevermind

I just noticed this thread has received 40K views. Apple/Steve should seriously reconsider their bone-headed FireWire decision. I think this complaint has some real legs.

Great response.

Schools weren't the only ones who bought it. People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.

[quote]What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?[

No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.

When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?/quote]

Know but I am bemoaning you twisting things based on literal meanings. When someone says they want a Powermac it obviously doesn't mean they want a half decade old PowerPC machine, it means they want a modern equivalent.


That would be a valid argument if the lines that were dropped weren't profitable. Apple dropped them for ideological reasons or they thought they could herd users up to a more expensive model.


If you're talking one nameplate, no they don't. However, they're computer lineup is very linear in its makeup with each computer playing a certain role based on Apple's interpretations.


You mentioned creative's Zen line of players which were a competitor to the iPods.


The problem here is that reality doesn't fit into a couple neat and tidy categories, especially if those categories are artificial and imposed by an outside party. There are many different users with different needs. You end up with a lot of users having to buy hardware above or blow their needs to stay with an operating system.


Mid-2005. Had as in Apple has down graded iLife, and the express and Pro versions of software to get people to buy the more expensive version. We're not limitless banks here. We cant spend an additional $700, $400 there just because Apple strictly categorizes things.


Inflation doesn't work that well with technology. As technology matures and advances, it gets cheaper.


Did you bother to actually ask them or just assuming its true because Apple says so?


Most of them at the low end.


So, the company, not the customer is always right? And if those customers decide the products don't suit them? Look, you might care about Apple being always right or something, but there are those of us who are interested in furthering this platform.


How can they make the wrongs ones?


What exactly are you doing? You seem to think everyone is just perfectly happy.


Too good to be caught in it? I was caught right in the middle of it. I believed everything without question. Then, the facts started to not quite add up with that Apple was saying.


No, but when it starts to fit a pattern when every decision is supported defended despite any kind of evidence to the contrary a pattern emerges. Especially when 24 hours earlier they would be saying exactly the opposite when that was Apple's policy.


I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.

So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.

Third time's a charm...

Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?

The 12" PB was iBook tech with a Powerbook pricetag. There was virtually no difference between the two lineups at that point. Apple was also severely processor starved, and losing hard to 12" Thinkpads. None of that is the form factor's fault.

I personally went from a 15" PB to a 12" iBook exactly because it was the same as a 12" PB.
Are you saying people *wanted* sub-Powermac performance at Powermac prices? It was a failed design from square one.

Except the new MB is suitable for any pro that doesn't need firewire. The MBP is owned by many consumers. It's just pricey for that purpose...not unsuitable.


No, he's arguing that Apple's line up isn't the disaster than xMac fans repeatedly say it is and Ben in particular.


It sure did.

Because of the lack of FW on the MB? Please. The MB now sucks for some pros but is now awesome for others. 30" ACD and a GPU that doesn't suck.

But hey, for you it's all half empty isn't it? Because all those pros don't count right?

Yep, the new macs and all of Apple's success is a mere fad and not actual good execution because you don't have an xMac.

Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".

Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?

Huh? How are they remotely the same? You have a SFF 1.6GHz, SFF 183GHz, 2.0GHz, and a 2.4GHz in the 13" notebooks. The integrated graphics between the MB and MBA may be the same chip, but the 9400M in the MBA is underclocked so it runs cooler. On top of all that, the machines are not marketed to the same customers. While some may be on the fence over which 13" Mac notebook is right for them, the vast majority will never consider the MBA due to it's inherent niche limitations.

There just isn't much comparison between the two machines outside of the display size. Even the quality of the display of the MBA is considerably better than the MBA which points to the device being marketed to a particular market segment that is not the average MB consumer.

Looking at Apples sales vs the general PC market, exactly where do you think they are going wrong in providing computers that people want.

The over all argument seems to be that Apple does not provide the computer that you specifically want. You don't really give any evidence that Dell or HP sell computers that most people want but Apple refuses to provide. If any thing I see the PC vendors providing computers more like what Apple provides.

No this is extremely vague. Exactly what other computers are you talking about? Which ones sell so much better than Apple's?

[QUOTE=BenRoethig;1338617]Schools weren't the only ones who bought it. People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.


You're breaking the post into segments that are geting too numerous to continue answering one by one.

At this point, I can see we're not going to get together on this.

I'd be happy to get onto something else, and part as good neighbors.

I'm going to respond one last time to Gon's post, and drop it.

No. What I'm doing is giving the perspective from Apple's point of view, and you are giving it from your point of view.


Well, I don't agree on either point, because those 15" screen laptops are truly poor in quality, from that big screen on down. Apple isn't interested. Apple won't follow that path.

As far as the 12" PB goes, you couldn't be more wrong. That was a full fledged PB, not an iB in PB clothing.


Again, the 12" PB was NOT the same as the small iBook.

This is it for me.

The Firewire Trade Association is apparently taking media lessons from Comical Ali.

Under siege from USB3 and dropped from Apple's best-selling computer, they boast that only the 800 spec will be supported in Windows 7 and nobody says a word about the adoption of the 3200 spec.

Lovely.

I don't see where it says "only" the 800 spec will be supported. I did find this statement in the link you reference: "In addition, Microsoft will support the new 800 Megabit/second version of FireWire in upcoming Windows Version 7 releases next year. "

Can you point me to the part that says ONLY 800 will be supported, implying 400 won't? Thanks.

Don't waste your breath. The only benchmark they having for something being right is that Apple did it. If Apple's sales go up, it is because of Apple's superiority. If Apple's sales go down, the users just doesn't get it and wasn't worthy of owning Apple in the first places. It doesn't matter how long you've been on the platform or how much money you've spent supporting the company. The moment you say one thing against Apple, you're public enemy number one.

Time has moved on. Nobody cares about 400 anymore.

My point was that they are projecting that FW800 - not FW3200 - will be going up against USB3 on the PC.

If that's the case, the party is over for Firewire. The last person out the door can turn off the blinking LED.

This isn't entirely true or very fair.

At some point we all disagree with some decision Apple has made. We all often disagree about our disagreements.

But some here mistake what they wish Apple would do for some catastrophic mistake Apple is making. You have to keep some perspective on it. Simply because Apple does not do what you wish does not necessarily make for catastrophe. If you feel it is, its not unrealistic to ask for some proof why you believe its so catastrophic.

For a hint anything Dell or HP are doing often does not make for a good example.

Some people like to pretend to themselves that they are independent, and the only way they can prove that to themselves, is to go against the tide. Some people even buy Macs because of that. A few even buy Linux for the same reason.

And a small few go and buy Zunes for the very same reason.

It seems that thinking that Apple is a pretty smart company right now is a bad thing to them, because they can't get what they want (just like the Rolling Stones). So they can't understand why most people can't agree with them. They find it necessary to come up with delusional theories as to why we are "brainwashed" and, of course, they are immune.

They don't seem to understand that it's just a business. A very sucessful business. They feel excluded, and are sullen over it.

MBPs are more than suitable as home machines. Decent game machine, very good media machine, etc.

iMacs are the desktops apple offers for home use along with the outdated mini.

Mac Pros are workstations but no more ugly or unsuitable than the Dell XPS which are large, black and have LEDs adorning it. Pricey but all of Apple's stuff is pricey.

There are probably lots of Mac Pros in the home environment. I'd have gotten one if I had ever used any of the slots in my Quicksilver because they are nice machines and very quiet. But I decided MBP is much better for a home machine for me. Pro name or not.

OK, I've been a Firewire proponent and have stated in this thread that it was a mistake on Apple's part to eliminate it from the new MacBooks. So I find myself shopping at our local Target store last night and I happen to look at the consumer video cameras. I'm not sure I checked every one but of the roughly half-dozen I glanced at, all had USB connections and not one had a Firewire connection.

Here is a "Pro" that has a MacBook precisely because I have a Mac Pro for anything that needs firewire.

I *adore* FW, but frankly, anything I have that's FW usually needs my desktop's TB of HDs and multiple CPUs to be useful.