Moving some capability back is both just a publicity move AND a act of corporate responsibility to the country it was founded in. Just like the solar and fuel cell capacity at the NC data center. Both publicity for greening and an act of good corporate stewardship.
Companies like that should be rewarded. Otherwise you get results like Walmart.
The corporate reponsibility to America point still probably stands for Wal Mart, but they have installed solar panels on every Wal Mart to make less of a dent in the power grid. One easy example of green that info is readily available on.
Having one, I can tell you that the Mac Pro is easily the most complex of all Macs by far. The case is very complex. You obviously haven't seen one if you think the case and electronics are simple.
We also don't know what the new Mac Pros will look like. Will it be smaller/larger? Less integrated? Will it even be made out of aluminum? Nothing is simple, simple...of course not. Were also talking about a machine that doesn't have all of these little parts and pieces that an iMac, MBP, MBA, or mobile device does. From an assembly stand point I would think its a hell of a lot easier to assemble a Mac Pro than it is an iMac, or portable computer. I'm not saying its easy as pie and anyone could do it, but it appears to be easier, no?
Having one, I can tell you that the Mac Pro is easily the most complex of all Macs by far. The case is very complex. You obviously haven't seen one if you think the case and electronics are simple.
Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it. :no:
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.
Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it.
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.
Same here - they are beautiful inside, reflecting that design ethos that Steve learned from his dad. However, the current case and components are somewhat complex and most surely not assembled by robots (other than the MOB). They mostly are hand built if for no other reason than the case design is something like 10 years old.
If we are correct in guessing that this new US assembly plant is for MP, it will be exciting to see what Ive and his team have come up with. The only way it makes sense is if it is almost completely assembled by robots. U.S. hand labor is just too expensive. If all this is true it signals a substantially different case design and component layout.
A fantasyland product made by every other computer manufacturer out there. Apple specifically doesn't make one.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean and wasn't able to make Google understand what I'm trying to find out.
It's a fantasyland product, but it's made by every other computer manufacturer? I'm confused. Not that anyone will be surprised by that... it's obvious that I have about the same intellectual prowess as your average house cat.
Would you mind elaborating a little on specifically what the people suggesting an XMac be built in the USA are referring to?
It's a fantasyland product, but it's made by every other computer manufacturer? I'm confused.
They want a box with a consumer chip that you can open and take out every single component and replace yourself. Nothing really to do with being built in the US.
$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.
Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.
Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
If Apple wants to kill off the Pro, it doesn't need to do anything. It doesn't even need to invest pro software development.
If it's taking so long, may be they are trying to reinvent it ?
Tim Cook is taking the billions and doing some pretty substantially forward thinking stuff. I'm sure much of this was in the works before Steve left, but Tim is going strong with it and I'm impressed. Now I'm waiting to see who can reignite the feeling of awe and excitement at events because Tim's not it. Who will I actually believe when that person says a new project is "revolutionary" or "magical". Might never happen, I guess, but it would be fun.
I wonder if they'll convince Jony Ive to get up on stage. He has an infectious hyperbole gene judging by the promo videos.
What rule says that Apple needs to trot out a company executive to make the new product announcements? Steve Jobs could do it because of his natural showmanship, but I've not seen that level of ability with anyone else in management at Apple, HP, Microsoft, Dell, or Google.
Apple should find someone with the subtle acting chops of the guy that played "I'm a PC" doing the announcements. The added advantage is that when Microsoft copies Apple we won't have to look at Monkey Boy up on stage any longer.
Having a high margin will give a hardware company room to explore and innovate. It does not mean the company will become unprofitable suddenly just by making a product in US. They took a few years to learn and shift along the way, which helps to mitigate risks and cost. It's just $100 million outlay at this point, but that's because they have spread out the execution since a few years back.
At the end of the day, the move will have to make economic sense, and be "better off" in some ways.
Tim Cook is not going to build a factory that has to be subsidized by other products or divisions. This thing is going to contribute profits to the corporation or it's not going to be built at all. That's why you don't find a $5 Lightning-to-30-pin connector at your local Apple store; products contribute to the bottom line or they are retired.
The $100 million "outlay" you talk about is a capital investment that has to be amortized over the life of the project, where a percentage of those costs are recorded as an expense (depreciation) against the goods manufactured there. Numbers guys like Tim Cook have teams of bean counters to run all the assumptions before a dime is spent. This is not going to be some "feel good" charity offering.
Very interesting interview both for the news about the Mac line production in the US and his last statement about what Jobs said to Cook before his death.
I disagree. All computers are "commodity" products in the sense that you use it here, and the ones that the public "lusts" for are the high volume ones like iPhone that will never be produced in the USA. Also, the concept of "having enough margin" to do something like this really means "having enough margin to blow" on something like this. Apple would have to be prepared to throw away margin on what you yourself describe as their premiere product and I don't see that happening. Apple makes an absolutely *huge* markup on all it's products and it doesn't drop it even on high volume sales, (see iPhone), let alone low volume specialty products with higher production costs.
Samsung manufactures parts for the iphone in the Texas. The logistics aren't just production costs, and you should know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.
Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. You think they require an excuse to kill something? If they wanted to kill it, it would already be dead.
This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. You think they require an excuse to kill something? If they wanted to kill it, it would already be dead.
Yup. See Xserve. Boom. It's finished. MacBook Pro 17". Boom. It's gone. No need for an elaborate $100 million ruse to allegedly "kill the Mac Pro." Apple doesn't have to justify any product decisions that way, when a just few words from Phil Schiller will do.
Either this article or another one already mentioned that the existing "made-in-the-USA" Macs are probably a test run. I believe they're also probably being built by Pegatron, based in Fremont, CA. Other stories place Fremeont as the source of the US shipments.
Yes, we've read about the possibility of Pegatron, but it's not certain. I've also read about "guesses" about it being the Mac Pro because of the lower volume. But that's a much more complex product. To me, I would think that the much simpler 21.5" iMac would be a more likely choice. Why begin with such a complex model? Apple doesn't need to make all the iMacs here, certainly not in the beginning.
Sure, but pick another product in the Mac lineup that has such low volumes that the ENTIRE production can be done in the US.
It isn't the iMac unless Apple expects iMac sales to crater.
I don't think that's relevant. Why start with the most complex product? If they're going to do this, they should begin with something simpler. They don't have to do all the production here either. Not in the beginning.
It's pretty obvious that Apple regards this as a test. While they apparently intend to work on it, they are starting off small.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Moving some capability back is both just a publicity move AND a act of corporate responsibility to the country it was founded in. Just like the solar and fuel cell capacity at the NC data center. Both publicity for greening and an act of good corporate stewardship.
Companies like that should be rewarded. Otherwise you get results like Walmart.
The corporate reponsibility to America point still probably stands for Wal Mart, but they have installed solar panels on every Wal Mart to make less of a dent in the power grid. One easy example of green that info is readily available on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Having one, I can tell you that the Mac Pro is easily the most complex of all Macs by far. The case is very complex. You obviously haven't seen one if you think the case and electronics are simple.
We also don't know what the new Mac Pros will look like. Will it be smaller/larger? Less integrated? Will it even be made out of aluminum? Nothing is simple, simple...of course not. Were also talking about a machine that doesn't have all of these little parts and pieces that an iMac, MBP, MBA, or mobile device does. From an assembly stand point I would think its a hell of a lot easier to assemble a Mac Pro than it is an iMac, or portable computer. I'm not saying its easy as pie and anyone could do it, but it appears to be easier, no?
Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it. :no:
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Of course the third option is XMac. If production in America is possible then even an XMac is possible.
What is XMac?
Originally Posted by v5v
What is XMac?
A fantasyland product made by every other computer manufacturer out there. Apple specifically doesn't make one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it.
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.
Same here - they are beautiful inside, reflecting that design ethos that Steve learned from his dad. However, the current case and components are somewhat complex and most surely not assembled by robots (other than the MOB). They mostly are hand built if for no other reason than the case design is something like 10 years old.
If we are correct in guessing that this new US assembly plant is for MP, it will be exciting to see what Ive and his team have come up with. The only way it makes sense is if it is almost completely assembled by robots. U.S. hand labor is just too expensive. If all this is true it signals a substantially different case design and component layout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A fantasyland product made by every other computer manufacturer out there. Apple specifically doesn't make one.
Sometimes known as the Apple IIci.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A fantasyland product made by every other computer manufacturer out there. Apple specifically doesn't make one.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean and wasn't able to make Google understand what I'm trying to find out.
It's a fantasyland product, but it's made by every other computer manufacturer? I'm confused. Not that anyone will be surprised by that... it's obvious that I have about the same intellectual prowess as your average house cat.
Would you mind elaborating a little on specifically what the people suggesting an XMac be built in the USA are referring to?
Originally Posted by v5v
It's a fantasyland product, but it's made by every other computer manufacturer? I'm confused.
They want a box with a consumer chip that you can open and take out every single component and replace yourself. Nothing really to do with being built in the US.
$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.
Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
Originally Posted by MacTac
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
Miss the last five years?
If Apple wants to kill off the Pro, it doesn't need to do anything. It doesn't even need to invest pro software development.
If it's taking so long, may be they are trying to reinvent it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronsullivan
Tim Cook is taking the billions and doing some pretty substantially forward thinking stuff. I'm sure much of this was in the works before Steve left, but Tim is going strong with it and I'm impressed. Now I'm waiting to see who can reignite the feeling of awe and excitement at events because Tim's not it. Who will I actually believe when that person says a new project is "revolutionary" or "magical". Might never happen, I guess, but it would be fun.
I wonder if they'll convince Jony Ive to get up on stage. He has an infectious hyperbole gene judging by the promo videos.
What rule says that Apple needs to trot out a company executive to make the new product announcements? Steve Jobs could do it because of his natural showmanship, but I've not seen that level of ability with anyone else in management at Apple, HP, Microsoft, Dell, or Google.
Apple should find someone with the subtle acting chops of the guy that played "I'm a PC" doing the announcements. The added advantage is that when Microsoft copies Apple we won't have to look at Monkey Boy up on stage any longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu
That's not even the same thing.
Having a high margin will give a hardware company room to explore and innovate. It does not mean the company will become unprofitable suddenly just by making a product in US. They took a few years to learn and shift along the way, which helps to mitigate risks and cost. It's just $100 million outlay at this point, but that's because they have spread out the execution since a few years back.
At the end of the day, the move will have to make economic sense, and be "better off" in some ways.
Tim Cook is not going to build a factory that has to be subsidized by other products or divisions. This thing is going to contribute profits to the corporation or it's not going to be built at all. That's why you don't find a $5 Lightning-to-30-pin connector at your local Apple store; products contribute to the bottom line or they are retired.
The $100 million "outlay" you talk about is a capital investment that has to be amortized over the life of the project, where a percentage of those costs are recorded as an expense (depreciation) against the goods manufactured there. Numbers guys like Tim Cook have teams of bean counters to run all the assumptions before a dime is spent. This is not going to be some "feel good" charity offering.
Very interesting interview both for the news about the Mac line production in the US and his last statement about what Jobs said to Cook before his death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I disagree. All computers are "commodity" products in the sense that you use it here, and the ones that the public "lusts" for are the high volume ones like iPhone that will never be produced in the USA. Also, the concept of "having enough margin" to do something like this really means "having enough margin to blow" on something like this. Apple would have to be prepared to throw away margin on what you yourself describe as their premiere product and I don't see that happening. Apple makes an absolutely *huge* markup on all it's products and it doesn't drop it even on high volume sales, (see iPhone), let alone low volume specialty products with higher production costs.
Samsung manufactures parts for the iphone in the Texas. The logistics aren't just production costs, and you should know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.
Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.
Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. You think they require an excuse to kill something? If they wanted to kill it, it would already be dead.
Hacks/nobody
Yup. See Xserve. Boom. It's finished. MacBook Pro 17". Boom. It's gone. No need for an elaborate $100 million ruse to allegedly "kill the Mac Pro." Apple doesn't have to justify any product decisions that way, when a just few words from Phil Schiller will do.
Yes, we've read about the possibility of Pegatron, but it's not certain. I've also read about "guesses" about it being the Mac Pro because of the lower volume. But that's a much more complex product. To me, I would think that the much simpler 21.5" iMac would be a more likely choice. Why begin with such a complex model? Apple doesn't need to make all the iMacs here, certainly not in the beginning.
I don't think that's relevant. Why start with the most complex product? If they're going to do this, they should begin with something simpler. They don't have to do all the production here either. Not in the beginning.
It's pretty obvious that Apple regards this as a test. While they apparently intend to work on it, they are starting off small.