Ship times for 21.5" iMac slips to 2-3 weeks on US Apple Online Store

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 109
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    vaelian wrote: »
    Changing existing products is not my definition of innovation. The iPod was innovation since it disrupted the market; the iPhone was innovation since it did the same; the iPad created an entire new market where people thought there wasn't one, so that too was innovation to me; the Retina MacBook Pros and new iMacs, however, are not innovation to me because they're both full of compromises without creating any new markets or disrupting existing ones. An awesome thing Jobs did was to simplify Apple's product line, and Cook is destroying that in an irrational bid for profit.

    The kind of refinements they are doing on the iMac are unprecedented: the friction-stir welding and the screen bonding. They're a risk when it comes to large-scale production, because they're difficult and they've never been done before by anybody on that scale. Cook and Ive et al.take risks when they do this sort of thing, and they should be appreciated for that, even if sales are constrained in early phases.

    But these refinements, which are innovations in manufacturing and design, are way too subtle for critics like yourself, so you get to complain and question the competence of the management. Meanwhile, anyone with two eyes and some aesthetic sense takes one look and decides that life would be much better with that computer than without it, even if it means waiting for it
  • Reply 22 of 109

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Again, what if there goal wasn't simply to meet demand of one product segment within one product category of one quarter but something bigger? Did they still screw up in a HUGE way? It's possible but there isn't enough evidence to say that is what happened. All we can say is that Apple hasn't sufficiently met iMac demand in several months.


     


    true, but that demand is likely to be..tiny.


     


    Take 2011 Q4 numbers...5.2mill macs..yes?


     


    Apple acknowledge that 75-80% of the computers they ship are notebooks, which is c.4mill units.


     


    That leaves 1.2 mill units in a Quarter between 3 models..worldwide


     


    split


     


    600k iMac


    400k Mini


    200k Pro


     


    ?


     


    so...6000 Imacs a day..give or take.


     


    in the grand scheme of things....a bit pathetic.


     


    it also shows that the poor Mac sales in Q4 2012 weren't all about iMacs.


     


    They should have been able to hit c.4m with notebooks alone.

  • Reply 23 of 109
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    flaneur wrote: »
    The kind of refinements they are doing on the iMac are unprecedented: the friction-stir welding and the screen bonding. They're a risk when it comes to large-scale production, because they're difficult and they've never been done before by anybody on that scale. Cook and Ive et al.take risks when they do this sort of thing, and they should be appreciated for that, even if sales are constrained in early phases.

    I appreciate it when people take risks to accomplish useful goals, which this was not. They changed the design for the sake of it, not to accomplish any objective goal.

    flaneur wrote: »
    But these refinements, which are innovations in manufacturing and design, are way too subtle for critics like yourself, so you get to complain and question the competence of the management. Meanwhile, anyone with two eyes and some aesthetic sense takes one look and decides that life would be much better with that computer than without it, even if it means waiting for it

    This is not a question of sensibility but rather of practicability. The new designs accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of usability or practicability, they do not have an objective goal; they do not actually improve anything; but they come with compromises; therefore they can not be called innovation. The manufacturing process may be innovative, but the manufacturing process is not a product, therefore it is outside the scope of this debate. Furthermore, Apple used to be known for using EXISTING technologies in innovative ways, not for creating new technologies and using it to produce the same products.
  • Reply 24 of 109
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    Steve was at Apple until 2011.  As these devices take a couple of years to plan and put to market and any company worth its salt has a plan that goes several years forward, Steve is still all over the current Apple lineup.

    While he might have contributed to the current product like, you can not claim that he would have given it the green light to go into production in its current state.
  • Reply 25 of 109
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »

    PS: I think the same people that have been Apple is stupid for trying new things with the iMac are the ones that are saying Apple hasn't innovated in years. Can they have it both ways?
    Nah, they'll just say thin isn't innovation. :)
  • Reply 26 of 109
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    vaelian wrote: »
    An awesome thing Jobs did was to simplify Apple's product line, and Cook is destroying that in an irrational bid for profit.
    What's your basis for this comment? One of the reasons Apple's stock got hammered this week is because profit was basically flat YOY and margins were compressed. If Cook was just looking for pure profit they would have updated the internals of the existing iMacs and nothing more.
  • Reply 27 of 109
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


     


    What's disturbing to me about this debacle is Tim Cook's much lauded claim to fame was his status and skill as "the logistics guy." This is three launches now under his watch that have been unable to meet demand because the production process just wasn't ready. He can blame anyone he wants, but if he was truly the "logistics guy" everyone says he is, this nonsense should have been nailed down before these products went on sale.





    Well. I have never managed the simultaneous manufacturing and shipping and sales of 75M+ units of anything before. So I am not qualified to criticize anyone for not managing to do more. My point was not about logistics of manufacturing but rather about timing of the launch. I can (sort of) appreciate that the iMac turned out to be harder to make. But why didn't they delay the launch?


     


    Also, iMac volume was done 700k. That doesn't quite explain the drop of over 1M in Mac sales.


     


    It is also ironic that, right on the heels of a rumor about iMac production problems being solved, shipment delays continue.

  • Reply 28 of 109
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Do you ever have anything to contribute to the conversation besides your tongue in cheek "Apple is doomed" nonsense? Maybe it was funny a couple months ago, to god knows who, but now it's just gotten ridiculous. We get it, you're a master of dry sarcasm. Accept this slow clap, and change up the routine.

    Then don't read my posts. Problem solved.
  • Reply 29 of 109


    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

    Do you ever have anything to contribute to the conversation besides your tongue in cheek "Apple is doomed" nonsense?


     


    You realize why we do it, right? We do it to preempt posts from people like you who actually believe it. Not for humor beyond the fact that it's a longstanding cliché.


     


    We do it so that you (fine, "they") don't embarrass themselves and instantly discredit everything they'll ever say in the future. So, in a small way, they're welcome for that. Not that they won't reveal themselves anyway, but still.






    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    They changed the design for the sake of it, not to accomplish any objective goal.


     



    Too bad humor isn't an effective combatant of depression; I'd be genuinely happy by now after all this nonsense. image

  • Reply 30 of 109
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,120member
    vaelian wrote: »
    I appreciate it when people take risks to accomplish useful goals, which this was not. They changed the design for the sake of it, not to accomplish any objective goal.

    Have you gone and looked at it? It really is a beautiful design. Almost 10 lbs lighter. Dude, do you only look at the electronics when you look at "goals"?
  • Reply 31 of 109
    plagenplagen Posts: 151member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post





    I appreciate it when people take risks to accomplish useful goals, which this was not. They changed the design for the sake of it, not to accomplish any objective goal.

    This is not a question of sensibility but rather of practicability. The new designs accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of usability or practicability, they do not have an objective goal; they do not actually improve anything; but they come with compromises; therefore they can not be called innovation. The manufacturing process may be innovative, but the manufacturing process is not a product, therefore it is outside the scope of this debate. Furthermore, Apple used to be known for using EXISTING technologies in innovative ways, not for creating new technologies and using it to produce the same products.


    Well, of course an ugly Windowz box sitting under your desk and a brick monitor made off two slabs of plastic slapped together have the same functionality and usability, from your point of view.


     


    These unfounded and biased accusations of lack of innovations are really getting old and annoying.

  • Reply 32 of 109

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Have you gone and looked at it? It really is a beautiful design. Almost 10 lbs lighter. Dude, do you only look at the electronics when you look at "goals"?


     


     


    And the screen is amazing.

  • Reply 33 of 109

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Have you gone and looked at it? It really is a beautiful design. Almost 10 lbs lighter. Dude, do you only look at the electronics when you look at "goals"?


     


    The key functional advance is the reduced screen glare.  Otherwise the thinness gimps the iMac as far as internal drives and video card options.

  • Reply 34 of 109
    mugzymugzy Posts: 38member


    meanwhile, I walked into an Apple Store yesterday, bought one and walked out.


    I could have bought one the night before when I doing some comps, they checked stock then and they still had what I was looking for.


     


    So it would appear that they are making sure the B&M stores have stock over the Online Store.


     


    I'd be interested to see what the actual turn-around times are for ordering from the Online Store for stock vs a BTO with something like the Fusion Drive option (which I wanted but but was not willing to wait for despite the store techs saying that getting a Fusion Drive would only add a couple of days to the wait for in-store because they were actually pre-built in certain configs as far as they knew).

  • Reply 35 of 109
    I think that Apple needs to, going forward, be more realistic in pacing new product introductions so as to get demand and supply in better balance. .

    Their stuff is in so much demand that it likely wouldn't help. If they delay international rollouts they lose sales in those areas or have issues (if its a mobile device) with resellers trying to grab from where it is available. Even if they has been able to make those 1 million iMac units they would still possibly have supply issues because there might be 1.2 million wanting them.

    Also don't forget that the online store and its figures don't count for everywhere. That's just that channel. Who knows about the in store stock since they have personal pickup turned off on the iMacs right now.
  • Reply 36 of 109
    stelligent wrote: »

    Perhaps. But deciding to launch the iMac before it was production ready was a decision made at the executive level of management.

    It's also classic Steve Jobs. Steve abhorred the notion of anyone announcing a product before Apple did. Yes there were rumors but nothing that could be deemed official like FCC papers or such. Steve had no issue with announcing somethng months before release so Apple was the first to give the official word.

    These iMacs were different enough that the same notions would apply. Folks at the factory making the prerelease stock wouldn't be able to help themselves about leaks to make a few extra bucks. So announce first and then put them into production. Tim was open and honest that there would be supply issues and I applaud him for that frankness*. And I understand the reasons. Both lack of stock piling which was never really Apple's thing and details like the displays are hand calibrated. If going slow and steady means I get a unit that is prefect the first time, I'm personally okay with that and don't want them to change a thing

    *Compare this to HP, who announced their Slate tablet. Started preorders and even sold out. Only for everyone to find out that they only had 5k produced, without mentioned limited stock at any time. The other 10k folks that ordered one were informed their orders would take as much as six months to deliver because HP didn't have access to the production line or needed components to make more and wouldn't for at least 3 months.
  • Reply 37 of 109
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


     


    Do you ever have anything to contribute to the conversation besides your tongue in cheek "Apple is doomed" nonsense? Maybe it was funny a couple months ago, to god knows who, but now it's just gotten ridiculous. We get it, you're a master of dry sarcasm. Accept this slow clap, and change up the routine.



     


    Somebody has to counter the bullshit artist posers (you?) who act like marketing and manufacturing experts telling Apple what it must to survive, making comments about business practices they know absolutely nothing about, extrapolating conclusions from bullshit rumors. Of course Apple helps this "artistry" by keeping mum on what's really happening and that makes the bullshit proliferate like fruit flies in a lab experiment.

  • Reply 38 of 109
    cash907 wrote: »
    What's disturbing to me about this debacle is Tim Cook's much lauded claim to fame was his status and skill as "the logistics guy." This is three launches now under his watch that have been unable to meet demand because the production process just wasn't ready. He can blame anyone he wants, but if he was truly the "logistics guy" everyone says he is, this nonsense should have been nailed down before these products went on sale.

    I know of one launch that Apple said would be slow because of production issues (mostly likely that the units need a slower process to ensure quality) and several where issues have been rumored.

    I wouldn't use the latter to judge him since there's no proof. And remember, it might be his watch as CEO but that doesn't equal him being the 'logistics guy' anymore. If you want to judge that you need to go back to when he was that guy
  • Reply 39 of 109
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Ship times remain long. Apple can't keep up with supply. Apple is doomed.



    Of course, if the ship times decreased, demand is falling and Apple is doomed.



    If the ship times remained unchanged, productivity is not improving. Apple is doomed.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post





    Fact is that they sold less Macs this quarter.

    Can you quote anyone actually claiming that?

    See my reply to your first paragraph.


     


    Quote anyone saying that? Really. People make those claims all the time right here in AI, in this very thread. The "Cook debacle" (post #10) says it in so many words. Another take on the long ship times is that Apple intentionally limits supply to create the illusion of demand. That little canard is trotted out on a regular basis too. Analysts continually link decreased shipping times to a fall off in demand. It couldn't possibly be that  Tim Cook really is good at balancing supply and demand. The point of the sarcasm is that no matter what Apple does or doesn't do the jerk punditry out there, and right here in the AI forums, will find a way to doom the company with it.

  • Reply 40 of 109
    saarek wrote: »
    Of course if they'd done a simply refresh of the old style iMac earlier in the year they could have easily met demand and launched this revision when it was ready. Of course sales were slowing down the machine was a ridiculous 18 months old.

    Apple screwed up in a HUGE way on this.

    And people would have blasted it as just a bump and sales might have been horrid since there was no innovation.
Sign In or Register to comment.