Analyst now says iMacs likely in both dual- and quad-core - Page 4

You always get a retort like this when you mention malware and viruses. I'm glad you haven't had any issues in this regard. Millions have.

I played lotto once and got 5 #s and won almost $800. But I don't extrapolate my experience to the general population.

No iMac update Tuesday. iMac update Wednesday? WTF if it is not updated on Wednesday. Then what. Thursday? Friday? Next month?. I'm getting real sick of this, to be honest. And this Wu guy, price target of AAPL $120? Maybe by the end of the year... Maybe... Still a bit of a reach, especially with Steve Jobs out of the limelight for at least the first half of the year.

I have a gut feeling of some level of indecision at Apple HQ without Steve actively in the process. Those running the show now, as good as they are, are perhaps making sure they do not anger the Messiah while he is resting.

Well, we could argue that better integration in Microsoft vision of Enterprise environment is a bit silly argument here as OSX does not necessarily integrates in such environment any better than Vista Home Premium, eh? Does OSX have Shadow copy client, P2P Meeting Place, Offline folders with client-side caching etc anyway..?

But at the end of a day it does not matter, as - just checked - OEM version of Ultimate is US$30 more expensive than Home Premium, so it is hardly worth further arguing.




I use them occasionally but I never used iLife, so I don't know how they compare. Same for media-creation software that comes with DVD writers.



As I said before - if it works for them, fine. But I feel by lowering price (in general) Apple would earn less per unit but sell more units, ending with comparable income and getting bigger market share in process... which would bring more benefits in future... like motivating game creators to do OSX version of their titles, for example.

No, OS X is not integrated into Windows Enterprise. Yes, OS X does have enterprise management, network, and collaboration features.


The post this discussion originates from is speaking of building your own box. In this situation you are paying retail not OEM.




Apple's business model over the past three years has been to keep the same price, produce premium products that people want to buy, and your marketshare will grow.

Apple has gone from 2% marketshare in June 2006 to 9.9% marketshare today.

No, whatever product updates that are in pipeline right now have been planned well in advance. Apple just doesn't rely on the Mac anymore. It's sad.

Looking at the update history through the MacRumors buying guide, I recorded the length of time Apple allowed its entire desktop line to age before an update. Using the iMac release schedule as a baseline, I combined the number of months the Mini, Pro, and iMac had gone without an update, going back to 2005, and came up with these numbers:

12
12
10
15
26
18
40

Between January 2005 and the last iMac update in April 2008, the average number of months Apple allowed its entire desktop line to age before an iMac update was 15.5. They have not only well-surpassed this average, but have well-surpassed doubling it and are now on the way to nearly tripling it. Looking at the numbers in a chart may show an underlying exponential trend.



That trend is much easier to see when the baseline is the Mac Mini.



The Mac Pro line sees longer and more evenly spaced updates. Using the Pro a baseline, the desktop line averaged about 20 months before the last update and shows no trend.

I don't know what to make of this data, other than it looks like the desktop Mac is dying. The data for portables would not show anything like this. Even if the iMac and Mini are updated soon, it could be a very, very long time before their next update. A year and a half from now, Apple may just decide to stop making consumer desktops.

I'm actually getting fed up of people saying the desktop is dead.

Apple's desktops are dying.
Because anybody with a brain can look at the line and tell that Cupertino is phoning it in.

For example, if you make the insane decision to make RAM and hard drives difficult to change on your desktops, and then allow easy component access on your laptop line, a lot more people will buy laptops.

This requires only common sense to figure out.

Yes, I basically agree. I've been much harsher on them for not updating their line. I said the Mac desktop is dying.

"Phoning it in" is an apt phrase, since they're shifting their business in favor of phones. Macbooks may even be sold with 3G access in the not so distant future. Desktops aren't going to be a part of Apple's business model anymore.

I think desktops are still very vital. Eventually I want to be running Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio and Aperture all on the same computer. I want something beefier than a laptop.

I think with the advent of sync that actually works the thought of having both a laptop for the portability and desktop for the power makes sense for creative types.

Even Apple's Pro laptops are more like higher end consumer laptops than they are Pro IMO

Is there any product that reliably sync your Mail folders?
That's one of the most serious impediments to working on both a desktop and laptop.

The length of time between refresh alone isn't necessarily a direct indication of the health of the Mac desktop. You did not factor in desktop sales, revenue they bring Apple, as well as the health of desktop sales of Apple's competitors. Or the current economic climate.

Apple's desktop sales have slipped 25% year over year. Some decrease in sales is to be expected in the current economic climate and 25% is considered mild in light of this reality.

Apple is not loosing billions in revenue and cutting jobs as many of its competitors have had to do.

That certainly depends on your subjective parameters of what makes a pro machine. I imagine you are largely using the specs and performance as you primary barometer.

More has to be taken into consideration than only power and speed in a portable machine. You have to consider size, weight, battery consumption, heat. Power can come to a point of diminishing returns where the portable device is no longer very portable or convenient to use.

Apple has made a priority to balance performance with portability, so that its notebooks actually remain portable and easy to use.

I work in film/video. The MacBook Pro is the de facto machine that most everyone uses, because everyone likes them.

I don't care how long you've been building Windows based PC's, and I'm sorry but firewalls do NOT keep you from getting spyware, malware, adware, viruses, etc. Unless your firewall blocks port 80, or 110 (internet port and default email port). Most of the above go through those ports. Most spyware/adware comes through visiting various websites, not all of them porno websites either.

A lot of consumers aren't computer literate enough to know where to go and not where to go, even if they're told 80 times. This is the issue people have. Using a Mac, this isn't an issue at all. This is a major selling point. It doesn't matter why this isn't an issue on the Mac, the fact of the matter is, its not an issue.

Most virus scanners will slow your computer down. Its rare to get a virus scanner that JUST does virus scanning these days. Most will do worm protection, intrusion protection, spyware protection, etc. These are all little programs/engines that need to run upon startup, increasing startup times and eating up system resources, thus slowing down your computer. If you take your anti-virus off you'd probably be surprised how much faster your computer is. That is, unless you have some quad-core CPU with 8GB of RAM. Yes, they all do scanning in the background on the fly, but its the system resources and sometimes CPU cycles that it steals in the background that makes your computer slow.

Part of the problem is, we've scared people to death with viruses, spyware, malware, etc. So a lot think they need some top notch software package, sometimes 2 packages when sometimes all they need is something simple (i.e. Norton Antivirus instead of Norton Internet Security).

IMO, today's pro notebook offerings should be shipping with quad-core CPUs out of the box. A small MHz upgrade (2.4 GHz MB to 2.6 GHz MBP) from the consumer laptop shouldn't really be considered a "pro" feature. If you want to ship a 2.6 GHz Quad-Core, thats a pro feature. Shipping notebooks with 7200RPM drives or 500GB drives out of the box...thats a pro feature. I do like the fact that there are 2 video cards in the new MBP, thats a step in the right direction. Now they just need to expand these to the rest of the specs.

Macbook Pro are indeed nice notebooks. I'd love to have one. My loose definition of what separates a consumer from Pro notebook is

Graphics -
Suited to workstation graphics rather than gaming so you see Quadro FX and FireGL GPU

CPU -

Quad Core mobile 3rd degree burn on your lap be damned.

So in essence I think Apple is nearly there ..just needs some GPU oomph and top modern CPU tech.

You guys are hilarious. No one can fault you for being practical or realistic. I can agree with you though that Apple should be using 500GB hard drives.

Who do you think is going to want to cart around this 3 inch thick, 10 pound heater, with loud fans with 30 minutes of battery life?

I would call a Pro notebook one that people want to buy and one that people can actually use as a portable computer.

At best the machine you've described is for a very niche market. Apple would not have grown its marketshare the way it has with that type of notebook.

Um... no, I don't think so. Not in NZ at least... Most shops will build custom PC according to your specs and put OEM Windows on it. Some will sell you OEM even if you don't get all parts from them. Don't know how common is that - haven't checked on every shop - but it can be done no sweat.



Good on them if that info is true. But don't you think they could get 15 - 20% if they'd make their lineup more affordable? I think they could. And I think that would open some new horizons as well (like game market I've already mentioned).

I don't think it would be 3" thick, but Apple doesn't need to design a .75" thick 17"MBP (without screen closed) either. This is a prime example of form over function. I don't think battery life is an issue. Most people have them plugged in anyways most of the time. Thats not to say its not important, its just not an absolute huge deal. I think today more people want a laptop so they can port their computer, work, etc where ever they go. I think you're exaggerating these claims...

The chips are already out there and use 45W instead of the 35W of the current chips. This is the future of computers. This is where Apple should be heading.

I think its been mentioned by Apple many times that they aren't in the game to make cheap products, but rather premium products. They could make cheaper products easily, but at the risk of cheaper parts, more failures, etc.

I don't think market share is Apple's first concern. If it was, they'd be doing things a lot differently. They're more concerned about putting out as Steve would say the best products on the planet.

I'm sure this is possible. I doubt most people are purchasing stand alone copies of Windows in this fashion seeing as retail copies of Windows are sold in every electronics store.



It is true.




People quite often say stuff like this. In spite of the fact that Apple has increased its marketshare almost 500% and the fact that Apple has doubled its cash reserves. People always seem to say Apple could have done even better if they'd only done what I think they should have done.

In light of the fact that no one here has built a billion dollar company. My question is always, "what makes you so sure of your idea?"

No its not, people prefer a more portable notebook over less portable notebook. That's clearly reflected in sales, as smaller lighter notebooks far outsell large heavy notebooks.


Battery life is an issue. The point of a notebook is to have the freedom to not be tethered to a power cord. PC manufacturers are always looking to extend power management and tout longer battery times.

I think you want to minimize the importance of battery because its inconvenient with using quad cores in a notebook. That's simply not in line with the current reality.


A lot of things are the future of computers. That does not necessarily mean they are ready to be used right now.

There are two tricks here: One would be to make their lineup more affordable without making it less desirable. The other would be to make it more affordable without taking a huge hit on their profit margin--the same one that keeps Wall Street from having the jitters over their risk taking.

When Steve Jobs says that Apple would make a cheap computer "but we don't know how to" that's what he means. Of course they could throw something together and kick it out the door, but there is figuratively and literally no profit in doing so and it would damage their brand and their reputation. Cheap machines now are generally loss leaders, and contrary to popular opinion there aren't many situations when loss leaders make good business sense (they're great when you have a bunch of stale stock in a warehouse that you need to get rid of, and selling it at Best Buy or Wal-Mart for something near cost is better than bulldozing it).

To address a different conversation in this thread: Desktops are dying, period. They're dying more slowly on the PC side because of enterprise, but the consumer desktop has been in retreat for some years now. There's hardly any reason any more to buy a consumer desktop anymore except to save a few bucks. Even if you want to play games, they've only just started to release games that can't run on a Pentium 4.

Oh, and Mac gaming will not recover in the foreseeable future. It's not the hardware, it's the software, and it's not just the software, it's the user base. Gaming on the Mac has been moribund for so long that Mac users are far less likely to buy video games than their Windows using brethren. That probably won't change unless Apple goes on a rampage and more than doubles its market share, which I find... unlikely.

Well, if they want OS upgrade on existing hardware, they'll have to do Retail... but we are discussing new system purchase. If they opt for custom configuration in computer shop, they will be offered OEM software by the shop employees. It is that simple.

If they still decide to purchase retail bix because, well, it comes in colourful shiny box, that is fine, but it does not negate the fact that possibility (and price) are available to everyone building new PC.


Sigh... I know it is true according to Net Applications survey, my remark was related to how accurate their survey is. For example, we have corporate users with limited Internet access. Reason is very simple - bosses want their employees to work, and not fool around, so their Internet access is limited to a handful of job related sites (suppliers, clients etc.). Limits are enforced through corporate firewalls, Web Marshal... and trend is much stronger with big sites - small businesses usually don't care for such efficiency streamlining. How does that play with Net Applications survey..?

And even home users. Most of my friends are spending good amount of their free, "computer" time playing games. At the end, I would expect their on-line time gets lower by default compared to Mac user who who are less into games. Now... that is just my thinking. I'm not saying above mentioned things are really having any significant impact on survey. I'm just saying they might, thus remark "if it is true".

To answer your question at the end - I am not sure of my idea. I just think it might improve Apple's market share. Lower prices generally tend to upsize sales numbers, in pretty much every segment of market. And I think Apple could lower their margin without making sacrifices in build quality.

Net Applications is well respected as a source of trends. These numbers typically shift from quarter to quarter. Over all, Apple's web share numbers have consistently grown.



Here is an article about a lawnmower company called Snapper. I think this story is analogous to Apple's relationship with the larger PC industry. Snapper's CEO decided not to sell Snapper lawnmowers in Wal-mart (the largest retail chain in the US) because Snapper is a premium brand. Snapper believes in making high quality lawnmowers, the CEO felt that Wal-mart's discount business did not provide Snapper with a proper selling enviornment and hurt Snappers value.


Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future--Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.

If you know nothing about maintaining a mower, Wal-Mart has helped make that ignorance irrelevant: At even $138, the lawn mowers at Wal-Mart are cheap enough to be disposable. Use one for a season, and if you can't start it the next spring (Wal-Mart won't help you out with that), put it at the curb and buy another one. That kind of pricing changes not just the economics at the low end of the lawn-mower market, it changes expectations of customers throughout the market.

It's not hard to make a cheap lawn mower. A cheap lawn mower feels flimsy, sounds louder than it has to, and even when new, requires a mysterious, frustrating combination of choke, priming, and pulling to start. The cutting deck of a cheap mower is stamped from thin sheet metal. Making a high-quality lawn mower--even in 109 seconds--requires attention to detail and constant improvement, which seems surprising for a machine that doesn't evolve that much.

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart