Originally Posted by vinea
Given that Jobs deliberately axed the Newton...yes.
Yes but it was a business decision just like trimming the Mac lineup was. The goal was get back to profitability. Many seem to think that Newton was aced because Jobs hated it, I'm of the opinion he had no choice.
Apple US Market Share in 1995: 11.1%
Apple US Market Share in 2009 (Q2): 7.4%
Of course, Apple market share tanked from 96-99.
Much of that due to Apples issues with operating systems at the time. Between the uncertainty of the companies survival and it's flailing about with OS development market share was certain to slid. The point is Apple could regain that market share faster if they had a more acceptable hardware line up. I'm not even sure how this is debatable anymore.
The entire lineup is fully SL and OS/X capable.
That all depends upon what you mean by SL capable. I just don't see C2D as coming any where near being optimal for SL. Run it yeah, but fully exploit it's feature I really doubt it. It is basically the samething with the 9400m based machines which only have 16 engines in them. Yeah the 9400M will work with SL but will the experience be anything to write home about, especially when GPU processing has been shown to significantly impact far more powerful GPUs.
So yeah todays Macs can run SL just like a 4 cylinder VW engine can power a ten wheel dump truck. The question is how long would you be happy with that sort of performance when the rest of the trucking world is running circles around you.
A headless mac would likely significantly cannibalize iMac sales and result in lower ASPs and therefore lower Apple profitability. But this has been hashed and rehased in the various xMac threads.
I've seen nothing that supports this arguement! A properly designed and marketed xMac would have the same margins as anyother Apple product thus being as profitable.
Name anything in OS/X that my current gen mini cannot do.
Address 32GB of memory? I'm not sure what the point in your question is though, this thread isn't about what your Mini can eventually do. Rather this thread is about moving Apples rather poorly performing iMacs to a somewhat state of the art performance level.
It is about an update we all know is coming. The problem is what will that update look like.
And there is no proof that Apple is missing out on a lot of customers. First you have to show that many more folks value OSX enough to pay a significant premium over HP for the same thing running Windows.
The proof is pretty obvious, Apples desktop line is suffering big time with respect to it's own laptops. You can't really deny this as Apples numbers have been faitlrly clear here. Plus you focus to much on this so called significant Premium over the Dells. First the Apple tax isn't that significant and second an upgradeable machine lowers the impact of that tax significantly.
Note too that a more salable machine can also be an iMac along with the mythical xMac. Produce an iMac with two or more user accessible drive bays and access to the RAM slots and you will dramatically increase interest I'm the iMac. Right now the iMac is close to being a totally closed machine to anybody with less than a well equiped shop. The new MBPs shows that Apple can design easily maintained equipment.
If you can't show that then all you're doing is reducing the price for folks that would have bought a mac anyway.
Apple is haveing issues with their desktop machines and it is directly related to the line up of hardware they currently have. There is little sense in even arguing the point.
First you have to show that the folks complaining are average consumers and not prosumers. But really, do you really think the iMac isn't snappy when running iTunes, iLife and Safari?
Actually it makes little difference.
As to the issue of Snappy it certainly can have moments of lag and poor performance. You have to realize though that there is more to a home users life than Safari. Oh by the way slap a little Flash into a web site and even Safari starts to really lag. You could say that is a flash problem but you also can't deny that faster hardware would help.
Second, you continue to ignore that the iMacs will be nehalem later this year and will have comparable performance to i7. Slower yes, but not horridly so.
nope, what I'm saying is that I don't know that to be the case. Nor do I know what GPU hardware they will be supporting. On top of that I'm saying that Apple made a big mistake in not introducing a quad core at the last iMac update. The point being that you will need quad core to really leverage SL when it comes out.
Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt anyone could change it.
True but I'm not completely bullheaded even though the last girlfriend said so. The one that could change my mind is Apple. You see I'm not disgusted with AIR the idea but rather AIR the implementation. Address it's significant shortcomings and I might take interest.
For example one issue is the wired Ethernet port or lack there of. A very important feature for those that travel. You may say that is strange why not use WiFi when traveling. To which I would respond reliability, availability and speed. A wired Internet connection is sometimes the better choice when traveling.
That is just one of a few small details that leave me convulsing when thinking about AIR.
At 300-700K desktop sales per qtr Apple has the volume to cover development. Another fact you ignore.
Spread over three product lines? It isn't being ignored by me that is for sure and probably isn't being ignored by the fianacial community. If Apple has 15 engineers assigned to desktops and the average $80,000 a year that is $300,000 a quarter right there. Fifeteen is likely a very low number and doesn't even include support staff and marketting. Plus we haven't even discussed that margin Apple loves so much. So in your worst case one dollar of every desktop goes to support those fifeteen engineers in this hypothetical case. The reality is like far worst as the whole department has to be supported on those sales.
People often wonder why the iMac and the Pro go for so long without fancy case upgrades and the like. The answer is pretty simple the sales are not there to pay for major bi-annual updates to the whole product. I have to wonder if anybody on the outside knows what the true engineering burden is for each desktop Mac. Not so much $$$$ but the head count required to maintain the desktop line up. I'm pretty much convinced that it is more than the fifeteen for this example but is it hundreds or more?
That would be a concern if Apple made poorly designed hardware. Or even grossly over priced them when a new rev comes out. Right now, even with the speed bump, Apple really is waiting on Nehalem for a real update.
Apple has produced some really bad hardware in the past do that is always a possibility. I do not however see the iMacs as bad hardware, what I see is underpowered hardware that really isn't suitable for Apples new OS update which will be here shortly. That is what makes them bad purchases.
Yes, apple on the fly redesigned the MBPs to all have integrated batteries which is a significant design change just for WWDC.
Which just highlights that Apple could have a major iMac overhaul in mind too. Maybe even Mini. I just wonder if the MBP update demonstrates a new willingness on Apples part to put heavy engineering effort into the desktops. It is an area that needs lots of investment.
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
don't smoke here at all! So what was it that caused this comment anyways?
Nehalem in the iMac is a given. Jeez. Whatever the late 2009 Nehalem iMacs will be, "slow" wont the be likely adjective.
Nothing is a given right now. As to fast that is a very interesting discussion as they will certainly be faster than the old machines but will they be fast enough to fill that big gulf that would be the midrange? This is the thing Apple needs to fill this gap with something, I'd even settle for an iMac if it was properly human seviceable and added internal drive bays.
Well it probably won't get nehalem and it probably will be around a long time.
I'd expect Nehalam by early 2010. Not something with an especially fast clock but something to take advantage of the higher integration. Frankly Nehalam is almost ideal for Mini and could actually lead to a lower cost device. Apple might not use it the way Intel intended but I could see that happening.
It's as up to date as all the other AIOs waiting for mobile nehalem parts. Likewise there's nothing backward about any of Apple's notebook line.
I have to disagree as there is a whole line up of small form factor chips that are not used on iMac. It may be close to up to date as far as mobile parts go but it certainly isn't the chip for supporting SL. It is a stopgap measure. A poor one at that based on performance, longevity and cost.
The only thing Apple hasn't done is use the quad penryns likely from too much heat.
it is a desktop computer, if they can't manage the thermal load then I have to wonder what is up at Apple.
Ideally, they'd have released in 2000Q1. That sure didn't happen but it isn't like Apple can do THAT much about Intel's release schedule.
Besides, yammering on a forum does nothing.
on the contrary it does look lik yammering does help Apple to see the light. This probably combined with more reasoned complaints to Apple itself. Some of the things corrected with the new Mab Book Pro releases seem to indicate a responsiveness from Apple we have not seen lately. I'm taliking details like support for more RAM, Firewire and some of the other lesser features that seem to address user complaints.
I suggest you put words into action and stop buying these horribly designed and maintained Apple products that you're so tired of.
Well I have! That is why I went with a Mac Book Pro over a year ago. It is also why many are holding off purchases hoping that Apple can get a more reasonably configured machine out the door. Apple has been milking both the iMac and the Mini for couple of years now so it is no wonder that sales have lagged. The issues of serviceability and performance aren't even remotely new with regards to these models so I'm not sure why people are surprised when others here lobby for significant refinements or more modern approaches.