Apple's lack of new hardware

You speak no truth at all. The imac is a sign of good things to come and as far as apple events being a fasion show? Apple needs to create buzz so the press takes notice not just "the faithful."

I agree, VelocityEngined. It is beginning to look like a fashion show, with only a turtlneck, a pair of jeans, and some BS hardware

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>The current (meaning last 12 months) take of Apples hardware lineup has been terribly managed at the cost of the long devoted Apple consumer. Specifically I refer to the debacle that is Apple's Power Mac line.</strong><hr></blockquote>The iMac was ready, so they released it. The chips for the PowerMac are not ready. How much would people be complaining if they'd held the iMac back or put a lower-Mhz processor in it?

So if the consumer line and the pro line are not in the right price/performance ratio all the time, that means Apple is "terribly managed?"

What happens to your theory if new, much faster Powermacs are introduced by the time the new G4 iMac is actually available?

Yea i agree! Apple's stuck at 867mhz with a 2.9% market share, and all this guy comes out with is a new imac and a 14" screen on a powerbook! You've got to be kidding! Hey if Apple's market share gets any lower their out of business! Macworld= all hype and no substance! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>

Don't think I am happy about this. Have you ever known another company to have customers tell them EXACTLY what they want in future products (at beyond reasonable requests) only to have Jobs do the exact opposite? EX: Give us a 1ghz Cube at $999 and they'll sell a million of them. Nope: buy the new i-mac that is useless to graphics pros (long term that is).
How about a tower with current bus speeds and at least 1ghz+ speeds and we'll still pay your inflated prices (yes 1699 for a tower is very expensive). Sorry, nowhere to be seen.
It's ok though. According to Apple the 800 mhz i-Mac runs 50% faster than a Pentium 4. Not trying to be sarcastic but it's hard not to be at this stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Join the club. Anybody that isn't an Apple apologist should be pissed at their pro desktop. It is overpriced and underpowered. Hopefully, they remedy this soon. I think they will...but I agree it shouldn't have gone on this long.

[quote]Don't think I am happy about this. Have you ever known another company to have customers tell them EXACTLY what they want in future products (at beyond reasonable requests) only to have Jobs do the exact opposite? EX: Give us a 1ghz Cube at $999 and they'll sell a million of them. Nope: buy the new i-mac that is useless to graphics pros (long term that is).<hr></blockquote>

1Ghz Cube at 999 IS NOT reasonable.

Customers do tell Apple what they want. And when Apple can they deliver
examples
1.) Demand for more than 3 PCI slots. Apple gives 4 now.
2.) Demand for G4 imac. Apple delivers G4 in imac
3.) Demand for LCD in iMac. Apple delivers LCD imac
4.) Demand for Superdrive in iMac, Apple delivers superdrive imac
5.) Demand for larger iBook screen. Apple delivers 14 inch iBook

Apple did all this but they had to do it had a pricepoint that will be successful for them. Apple has revealed today that the margins on the iMac are small compared to the original and not where they would like them. Apple can only do the highend for 1799. If you have a problem with that you'll have to deal with it. Apple can't just slash prices. they would lose tons of money.

BTW, how is the imac useless to graphic pros?

[quote]How about a tower with current bus speeds and at least 1ghz+ speeds and we'll still pay your inflated prices (yes 1699 for a tower is very expensive). Sorry, nowhere to be seen.<hr></blockquote>

I think its a given that the PowerMacs are outdated and that an update is coming ASAP. Don't just stink on this one product when you know its as close to dead as being dead

[quote] According to Apple the 800 mhz i-Mac runs 50% faster than a Pentium 4. Not trying to be sarcastic but it's hard not to be at this stage. <hr></blockquote>

how can you be upset about the iMac <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>

Don't think I am happy about this. Have you ever known another company to have customers tell them EXACTLY what they want in future products (at beyond reasonable requests) only to have Jobs do the exact opposite? EX: Give us a 1ghz Cube at $999 and they'll sell a million of them. Nope: buy the new i-mac that is useless to graphics pros (long term that is).
How about a tower with current bus speeds and at least 1ghz+ speeds and we'll still pay your inflated prices (yes 1699 for a tower is very expensive). Sorry, nowhere to be seen.
It's ok though. According to Apple the 800 mhz i-Mac runs 50% faster than a Pentium 4. Not trying to be sarcastic but it's hard not to be at this stage.</strong><hr></blockquote> What Pentuim 4 is Apple talking about! Does anybody believe that balony Apple puts out? MHZ dosen't count! Are they kidding our what? The Cube=over priced, over hyped, under powered gimmick that didn't work!!!!



[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: rbald ]</p>

Originally posted by applenut:
[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:


Applenut, why isn't a 1ghz Cube reasonable at $999? Not even a G3 version? What makes apple customers believe that any Apple processor at 1 ghz is worth 1600 or so dollars? Not trying to argue with you/ Just wondering why that is so
unreasonable. Would $1100 be ok?

<strong>1.) A G3 is not considerably less money than a G4
2.) a 1Ghz G4 would still cost a lot
3.) How could Apple justify the price of its powermac line while a 999 machine ships with as fast or faster chip?
4.) they would likely not have sufficient margins</strong><hr></blockquote>

5) There is no 1GHz G3. Not till autumn 2002.

[edit: ACK! Sorry, applenut, I hit edit instead of reply! Bad moderator! No cookie! -Amorph]

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[quote]Have you ever known another company to have customers tell them EXACTLY what they want in future products (at beyond reasonable requests) only to have Jobs do the exact opposite?<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm...

Asked for slot-loading combodrive in PBG4 - check
Asked for a G4 iMac - Got it
Asked for an iBook with a larger screen - check
Asked to bring back many features in OS X (including AppleTalk and the forthcoming return of springloaded folders) - check, check, check.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

Customers do tell Apple what they want. And when Apple can they deliver
examples
1.) Demand for more than 3 PCI slots. Apple gives 4 now.
2.) Demand for G4 imac. Apple delivers G4 in imac
3.) Demand for LCD in iMac. Apple delivers LCD imac
4.) Demand for Superdrive in iMac, Apple delivers superdrive imac
5.) Demand for larger iBook screen. Apple delivers 14 inch iBook </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yah.. except they take forever to do it :/

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>[QUOTE]Applenut, why isn't a 1ghz Cube reasonable at $999?</strong><hr></blockquote>I can think of one reason: the 1 Ghz chip doesn't exist.

A 700Mhz G4 cube would be reasonable, given that the iMac with the display is $1299.

I think it's interesting that they've said they have lower margins on this new iMac. We should have a debate now about whether that's really a good idea. For so long, people have said Apple's prices are too high, but most PC manufacturers with low margins haven't been doing too well, save one (Dell). Apple first needs to just survive, and the way to do that is to have high margins. Sucks for us, but having too-low margins is just too risky.

Ah, another loony bin thread.

"The recently released product isn't targeted to me! That must mean Apple is going down the tubes!"

"Why, Apple's released iMacs with chips in the tower's class! They must be utterly unaware of the contradiction! If only they read AppleInsider's forums to learn their crucial mistake!"

"I can't fathom why Apple wouldn't want to deflect attention from their new iMac by simultaneously announcing upgraded towers! They must be stupid or something!"

"Why doesn't Apple release a 1.6ghz Cube for $499? They'd sell a ton of them! They must be stupid or something!"

"Why doesn't Apple put a 1Ghz G3 in the new iMac? I read on a rumor site once that they were theoretically possible, so there must be a substantial supply of them! Apple must be stupid or something!"

Did I cover all the bases here? Let me know if there's any more we should index for future reference.

The powermac line is due for an update. It will get one, soon.

I don't understand all the anger being directed towards the powermac lineup. If Apple had given the powermacs some lame half-assed update at MWSF, then I'd be pissed too. But they didn't even touch the powermacs! To me this means that the powermacs are about to get a bitchin' update real soon.

Why not wait until the powermacs are updated, and THEN complain if they don't meet your expectations? It's not like we've been stuck at 867 MHz for 18 months.

LOL, I'm still laughing at the dork who sold his Powermac before MWSF so he could get more money for it, which he would then put towards one of the new powermacs! For the love of GOD! No matter how real rumors seem, they are just that, rumors. Basing important purchasing decisions on rumors is akin to guiding one's life using astrological charts and palm reader's advice. Fire up the incense, light a few dozen candles, and get the chants out, time to predict the new G5's clockspeed!

plenty of companies in the tech industry give their customers a little heads up about future products... apple, however, does not. Apple likes to keep everything quiet untill they release a new product. It really is a pain in the arse... By giving in a little they could possibly control all this rumoring and maybe even get a little more market share if consumers knew for a fact what apple had up it's sleeve... some may say Apple doesn't want others in the industry to copy something before it comes out but that's just plain unrealistic. The fact that everyone knows that the entire powermac line is as to apple as unused preference files are to the system folder. I certainly won't buy one... not now. If the powermacs are updated with new processors i'm not going to be happy with the tibook line staying at its current speeds. As a pro model the tibook line is NOT where it should be. As a pro user I feel ignored.

[quote]No way. You know that the Cube didn't sell because it was originally $1799. Jobs priced it that way because he was sure the design would sell the product. That was a terrible management
decision by Jobs. By the time it reached 1299 it was to late. Your point about 999 hurting higher end Power Mac sales is EXACTLY my point. Apple has created their own problem here with the price ranges. A 3500 dollar tower is foolish ant this point. FYI: BusinessWeek has an article on Macworld this week and they basically say that while the new i-mac is nice, many, including the media were expecting much more thanks to the "count on being blown away" scam. Yes, they mentioned that slogan in particular.<hr></blockquote>

The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.



[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>

Oh my god the ship is sinking Apple is going down the tubes and Armageddon is upon us. WOW! Apple has just released the finest consumer computer EVER in my HUMBLE opinion. Go the **** home engine, you will eat your ass upon the announcement of the G4 (G5) Powermacs. I PROMISE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>

While the towers are underpowered, I believe the real issue are the faithful Apple diehards who follow it's every frickin' move! (I'm guilty of this myself)

No other computer company have the feverish following that Apple does. Do you ever hear people complain that the new Dell is missing this or that? No, because even Dell owners just accept mediocrity.

While it fun to speculate and sometimes complain, many really need to chill out.
Go see a movie, spend more time with your girlfriend, or just be productive with what you have.

The reason for all the anger directed at the PowerMac line is simple. Apple refuses to sell anything that you can attach a monitor for less than $1699.

The PowerMac line is slow and outdated. People would buy something else except for Apple intentionally limits the video out options of everything else in the line.

All people are (and have been asking for) is a reasonably priced Mac that you can plug a monitor into. I myself am a school teacher. I don't have a need for the fastest machine in all of creation. However I do appreciate value and I also appreciate my flat screen 19 inch crt monitor.

I like the pricing of the new iMacs, however I do not need a new monitor, nor do I want to pay additional for the LCD. The only option available to me is either a horribly outdated education Powermac at $1200 (533 mhz G4, Rage 128 and only a cd-rom, not even a cd-r)

On top of overpricing the PowerMac line, they intentionally limit the options. You cannot buy a $1699 PowerMac and add a superdrive. Apple makes the only real "value" in the line the $2500 model. They also NEVER pass on the cost savings when the parts that make up the Powermac drop. Are we really to believe that the $100 (remember the line use to have a DVD and be $1599) is still necessary a year later?

Why does a "pro" machine still ship with no level 3 cache (a cited difference between the iMac and PowerMac) 128 megs of sdram, and STILL only a 5400 rpm drive.

Here is what Dell would be willing to ship me today to use with my 19 inch monitor.

1.6 ghz P4
256 megs of sdram
dell keyboard and MS Intellimouse
40 gig U/ATA 100 7200 rpm drive
24x/10x/40x cd-rw drive
32 meg ati rage ultra (easily replaced)
harmon kardon speakers (additional cost with Mac)
56k modem
10/100 ethernet

The price... $789 with free shipping.

The Apple solution with 256 megs of ram and speakers is $1808 dollars.

That is over a thousand dollar difference.

Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.

People like myself are upset because we have to justify $1800 to ourselves when similar machines from Dell and others are more than $1000 cheaper.

The specs of this $999 machine are really not significant. G3 vs G4, Superdrive or cd-r, etc... the point is really that Apple will not sell you machine that you can plug a machine that you can just plug a monitor into. Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.

Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business. Thus we would probably pay $999 for such a machine with slightly lower specs (Apple would likely only give us 128 megs of ram for example and probably a slower cd burner) We literally wouldn't mind paying a little more for a little less spec wise because we care about integration and again would pay more for it, but Apple simply won't offer it.

Nick

You whiners really need to stop and think about things.

1. Apple's desktops machines cost more for the same "specs". Get over it. So stop this "If I go to Dell's site..." garbage. Dells costs less because they are lesser machines. If you disagree, buy one. And don't complain when XP won't even recognize your keyboard. (this happened to a coworker today, had to go back to Win98 - you get what you pay for)

2. Before the iMacs, Apple was selling Performas with lesser video capabilities too. Many of those models didn't accept video cards to drive 19" monitors either. You had to go for the more expensive pro line to get slots to accept bigger video cards. That's the way Apple makes money. If you don't like it, then take your business elsewhere. Apple is making money, so obviously not everyone agrees with you.

3. Apple is making money. They are doing things right. I've seen so many armchair CEOs recommend ridiculous things like sell a $999 Cube (the thing costs more than $999 to market, produce, and sell, no matter what processor you stick in there) that common sense would dictate Apple lose money off of every sale.

4. Anyone who disagrees with you is NOT an Apple apologist, under Steve's RDF, or other such nonsense. I don't think Apple produces perfect products either, but I realize that Apple continues to improve them, and they can't have the perfect lineup 365 days a year. It takes time.

Whew! My rant's done. Now I will wait for the new towers to arrive. I'm sure I will like them.

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong> Steve Jobs has to either release top of the line products with all the trimmings or he needs to step down. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):

iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto

Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.

"The March quarter is one of product transitioning, but we remain optimistic about our growth prospects for the year because of a strong lineup of new products and a robust pipeline of new products yet to come," Anderson said. "Mac OX is gaining momentum, our vision of a digital lifestyle is beginning to take hold, we have full complement of best in class digital products, more retail stores are coming, and the iPod is very successful."


That is a quote I believe., and it sounds somewhat promising for march, and April maybe.

1.6 GHz processors(2.2GHz if you like that intel stuff)
mobile versions of Athlon4 and P4(i'm not too sure on this one)
DDR SDRam
Geforce3 ti 500
NForce with hypertransport & integrated audio
raid on motherboard
ata133
160GB Hard Drive
$399 15" lcd
"SuperDrives" DVD-RW or DVD+RW
Geforce2Go
ATi Radeon mobility

btw i'm a huge mac fan, and i believe that even despite the current specs of the offered machines they are faster than anything on the pc side, not benchmark wise, productivity wise, it definitely more than evens it out. But... pc makers constantly release new motherboards and newer processors, and newer technology on a REGULAR basis. the pc market is constantly in a state of change, the mac platform seems as though it is stuck in quicksand.

I say FVCK the MacWorld Expo's release new hardware when you can. Don't sit on the sh it. If you have a newer faster processor release it when its ready. Maybe people wont be so dissapointed when an expo comes around and they get year old technology.

I will forever buy the mac platform until Apple goes bellyup, which i hope isnt soon. But i will also buy PC hardware just so i can stay somewhat out of the quicksand.

I think some of you just take people like Engine, the one who started this thread (with a million like it), far too seriously. . . Look at how emotional and exaggerative his and others' messages are within their posts! Did it ever occur to you that these individuals might have had a bad day, a big fight, too much stress, Windows at their day job, or just sold their Power Mac on eBay before MacWorld, foolishly expecting a new G5--because on these rumor forums we heard "G5! G5! G5!" so much that we just brainwashed ourselves it was GOING to happen? Maybe you should think about these things. . . it seems to me like most people are just venting frustrations because they didn't get their way, not that there is anything at all wrong with that. Human nature, folks. So maybe try to understand the other guy--relax and take a few deep breaths--and think of the positive things about the Mac platform, OS X, Apple Computer, and Steve Jobs. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: bradbower ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by jacinto46:
<strong>

I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):

iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto

Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And a nice Unix based operating system that will work way into the future.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.
....
Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.
....
Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>

It sounds like you DO mind the premium that you pay to get an Apple instead of a Dell. Isn't that the whole point of your message?

Apple will never compete with Dell. Dell is taking pre-existing technology and packaging it using the highest possible business efficiencies, selling at razor-thin margins and surviving only because they move such massive quantities.

If Apple had a 7% gross margin, the only thing keeping them from being bankrupt within two quarters would be their huge cash reserves. They couldn't possibly increase their sales volume enough to cover their fixed costs at those margins. Apple turned a 30% gross margin and STILL just barely made a net profit for the quarter.

It simply isn't an option for Apple to try to play Dell's game. If you're comparing Dell machines to Apple machines and wondering why the price difference, there are lots of reasons for it. The biggest reason is that Apple must bear nearly ALL the hardware and software development costs for the machines they create. Dell just buys parts from third parties and bolts it together, then installs somebody else's OS and software on it.

Saying "But I could get a computer at Dell for so much less" is like walking into a nice restaurant, taking a look at the menu, and then complaining to the manager that "I could get a whole meal at McDonald's for three and a half bucks!" Granted, my analogy is flawed in that Dell is making machines that meet or beat Apple's in terms of specs. But the point is, you're comparing a company that's a pure mass-manufacturing entity, and comaring it to one that does an awful lot of other things, creates value in other ways.

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>
My point was and is that Apple has gone from creating solid dependable products a few years back to hyping moderate hardware while trying to become the Sharper Image of the computer industry. This discussion is about the viewing of business practices which happens to be a very interesting one from an average outsiders perspective. That's all. At least explain how paying near 900 dollars more for a Mac tower is worth it just "because it's a Mac". That my friend is just pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple has NEVER been the cheapest, "lowest common denominator" computer manufacturer. There have been times when Apple was selling Powermacs with processors that were as fast as the fastest Windows processors (or faster) but if Motorola can't give them faster chips right now, what do you expect them to do about it? Sell the machines for half price?

Honestly, if you don't think it's "worth it," then don't buy it. I don't blame you for being frustrated if you think Apple used to be more competitive than it was before -- that's definitely true in terms of the processor speed of the Powermacs (at least until the next revision which COULD be soon) at the moment. You can be pretty sure that if Apple could get faster processors from Moto, they WOULD.

But it's not like Steve Jobs comes over to your house and twists your arm to buy each new Powermac revision. if you think they suck, if you think Dell's spokesdude Steven is your kinda fella, then buy a Dell and I'm sure you'll be happier. This extreme anger and talk about being "ripped off" is just bizarre.

[quote]
The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.
<hr></blockquote>

LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.

Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?

Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.

Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, Apple bragged about the cube having the highest margin of any consumer computer on the market.

It was overpriced because of greed and stupidity, no other reasons.

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>

LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.

Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?

Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.

Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it does work that way. Apple is borrowing money from its profits to sink into the R&D budget. In order for a product which, like the Cube, requires a significant R&D investment to be created, it must return a profit margin enough to more than cover the cost of the R&D. Otherwise you go broke designing terrific products.

Why is the iMac so cheap? Because, as you pointed out, it's a Cube with a monitor. There were greatly reduced R&D costs, because many engineering problems were already previously solved.

[quote]Originally posted by VelocityEngined:
<strong>So explain to me why many of the Mac fan club despise Dell, or Intel and the great evil of them all Microsoft. Please. Tell it like it is. So which is it, does Microsoft suck or Dell? Why do they "suck"?</strong><hr></blockquote>

They suck because of their utter and abject disregard, bordering on self-abnegating apathy, for any consideration of humanity, aesthetics, or the idea of art, in the design and production of their products.

They suck because they appeal to the antithesis of the creative process - the mere participation in the manufacturing of objects and ideas.

They suck because they represent a vision of computing utterly devoid of the human soul.

I am not a graphic artist, a video producer, or even a writer. I do no page layout. I have no idea what Photoshop filters are. iMovie exists upon my machine merely because I have not gotten around to deleting it. I am not a photographer.

I spent two years as a Windows software developer. Every night, after contemplating a day spent negotiating with and condescending to acknowledge a world of grey interface elements on a grey background, sterile system text, unambitiously adequate user interface, and machinery devoted to Purpose rather than to Creation, I thanked a merciful God that some alternative existed.

That is why I am a Macintosh user. And yes, I am willing to part with some mere sum of money to be one.