After 'astonishingly' poor quarter, Mac sales predicted to rebound

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    ecs wrote: »
    Obviously, not everybody has a great display, but most current desktop users I know have a very good (and *big*, usually bigger than 21 inch) display. Being forced to buy an "all in one" looks nonsense when you already have the display you need. This wasn't true in the past, because we were in the transition from CRTs or from small LCDs, but that's not the market reality anymore.

    People who don't want an "all in one" don't want a Mini, because the Mini is less powerful in GPU. And don't want a Xeon either.

    If Apple released a powerful i7 with a 2GB GPU, with 512 GB SSD and without display, they could offer it in the $1900 price range. And I'm confident this would sell in larger amounts than the whole desktop line in this moment, because that's exactly the kind of performance most desktop users expect in this moment. And Apple could meet such price within its usual pricing, without any new pricing policy

    Let me get this straight: most Mac consumers are power users that already have displays and are willing to pay $1900 for a Mac Pro (whatever) instead of $1400 for an all-in-one.
    .
  • Reply 42 of 119
    Apple really needs to get the new Mac Pro out! There is a lot of pent up demand waiting for it including me! My little Mac mini is very nice but I need more power and a dedicated GPU when running Blender 3D!
  • Reply 43 of 119
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    One hypothesis I've put forward is that these iMacs were necessary for them not to get behind. But how if they are behind on iMac sales? That's looking at just the iMac. Apple has a long history o incorporating skills perfected in one area with other areas. This reduces costs and increases margins while still being competitively priced. What if these iMacs — the stir-friction welding, large laminated display, or something else entirely — are trials for a bigger, more colossal project that would be set back a year if Apple had waited a year to release this new iMac design?



    I'm not saying that is the case, just that there isn't enough information to say what circumstances that led to why they did what they did, just as looking at only the original iPhone's 4th quarter would show that Apple dropped the ball… which they clearly didn't.


     


    Very interesting hypothesis. The other possibility (or a complementary scenario) is that they stopped ordering parts for the old iMac prematurely and, once having failed to build enough new ones for the launch, also didn't have the parts inventory or capacity to build the old ones instead. One thing seems likely - they had an inking (if not confirmation) of this problem when the new iMac was announced. But they went ahead because the train had already left the station.


     


    FWS (friction-stir welding and not stir-friction welding, notwithstanding what this article says) is not used in many high volume applications. I wonder if the root of the problem is as simple as equipment supply.


     


    Regardless, your core premise is likely correct - FSW will be used in other Apple products.


     


    p.s. According to this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/20/imac_welding_british_company/), Apple only licensed the FSW technology from its inventor (TWI) in early 2012. If so, that's a short time to ramp up to high volume production.

  • Reply 44 of 119
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Let me get this straight: most Mac consumers are power users that already have displays and are willing to pay $1900 for a Mac Pro (whatever) instead of $1400 for an all-in-one.

    .




    Not most. But there are many. Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is growing in numbers, including animation studios.

  • Reply 45 of 119
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    That misses a key point. It's not a demand issue. If sales had increased and they still couldn't supply, then "demand was too great" would make sense. But when sales plummeted, it's certainly a supply issue.

    Now, the argument makes sense with the iPhone - because they've continued to sell more of each new model. It doesn't make sense wrt the iMac.

    He wrote: "...just about every Apple product introduction over the past few years has experienced problems with lack of supply." which led to his comment about Cook's aptitude. In no way did his comment reflect only the most recent iMac, hence my reply.
  • Reply 46 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member

    Not most. But there are many. Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is growing in numbers, including animation studios.

    I have no doubts there are a few but eca said it "would sell in larger amounts than the whole desktop line in this moment."

    Who is switching?
  • Reply 47 of 119
    zoffdinozoffdino Posts: 192member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Oh, give me a break. People on this forum have been bitching for a damn long time about wanting a redesigned iMac. Stop pretending noone wanted or was expecting it, and don't pretend that the people on this forum would have been satisfied with a spec bump. 



    At least bitching about "the new iMac looks the same" is easier to stand than "I can't f@#$king buy an iMac". Do you think people hate the old design enough to hold back purchasing 700,000 units worth a $1B?

  • Reply 48 of 119
    zoffdinozoffdino Posts: 192member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    so you're upset the price is ONLY $70 above your avg purchase price? it's not YOUR cash. You invested prior to any dividends. So at the time of the investment, you weren't promised any cash.



     


     


    Let me tell you a bit of investment 101: when I buy a share, I'm entitled to part of the company, be it 1%, or 0.0001%. I need no promise. Whatever assets the company have, minus its liabilities, are mine. That's the promise of the stock. With the cash pile sitting at $140B, I am buying a security that is backed by $145 per share of cash.


     


    Since you don't have any skin in this game, I will take you much less seriously on the topic. It's easy to see how you don't feel the same frustration for Apple shareholder, especially long term guys like me.

  • Reply 49 of 119
    ecsecs Posts: 307member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Other than the 17 people globally who play high performance games on their Mac, who cares? The iMac is an incredibly powerful machine that more than meets the needs of 99% of users. If someone needs the fastest video card, they're probably in the group that will want to upgrade the video card regularly - so they're not looking at the iMac, anyway.
    Do you really mean what you said? Do you really mean there're 17 users globally who use the Mac for movie encoding, for composing music, for ray tracing, for CAD, and for gaming?

    If that's the case, and there're only 17 musicians, CAD users, video editors, and gamers, there's no market for the MacBook Pro. Even the MacBook Air seems to be out of the market if that was reality.

    However, that's not reality. Reality is that there're thousands of musicians and DJs using computers, thousands of CAD users who also raytrace, thousands of people encoding hours and hours of video, and of course thousands of thousands of people who want to play last generation games.

    And no, they don't want a Xeon, unless they need at least a dual-chip configuration.

    Apple has no current offering for these thousands and thousands and thousands of users (unless they accept being forced to an "all in one" -which btw isn't designed for the tasks they do, or otherwise getting a Xeon, when they don't really want a Xeon)
  • Reply 50 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    zoffdino wrote: »

    Let me tell you a bit of investment 101: when I buy a share, I'm entitled to part of the company, be it 1%, or 0.0001%. I need no promise. Whatever assets the company have, minus its liabilities, are mine. That's the promise of the stock. With the cash pile sitting at $140B, I am buying a security that is backed by $145 per share of cash.
     
    Since you don't have any skin in this game, I will take you much less seriously on the topic. It's easy to see how you don't feel the same frustration for Apple shareholder, especially long term guys like me.

    I have 200 shares since 2005. So when I visited Cupertino a couple years ago I should have asked for a free computer or office supplies since I do own the assets as well.
  • Reply 51 of 119
    ecsecs Posts: 307member
    And, btw, all this "low Mac sales" worries wouldn't exist if Apple took the late 2012 Mac Mini, made it a bit taller so that a good NVIDIA GPU fits in there, and add a 512 GB SSD option for it. Sell that for $1900 and you have a PC killer right there. Low sales gone instantly. Yes, you would cannibalize the iMac by doing that, as well as the single-chip Mac Pros, but... Why worry on cannibalization on the Mac line if you accept it on the iOS line?

    A new Mac desktop line like this "taller Mini" would be the only way of saving the Mac desktop, because this is what desktop users want. They don't find it from Apple, so they fly away to the PC. As simple as this.
  • Reply 52 of 119
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by ecs View Post

    …thousands of musicians and DJs using computers, thousands of CAD users who also ray trace, thousands of people encoding hours and hours of video, and of course thousands of thousands of people who want to play last generation games.



    …an "all in one" -which btw isn't designed for the tasks they do…


     


    Challenge.

  • Reply 53 of 119
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post


     


     


    Let me tell you a bit of investment 101: when I buy a share, I'm entitled to part of the company, be it 1%, or 0.0001%. I need no promise. Whatever assets the company have, minus its liabilities, are mine. That's the promise of the stock. With the cash pile sitting at $140B, I am buying a security that is backed by $145 per share of cash.


     


    Since you don't have any skin in this game, I will take you much less seriously on the topic. It's easy to see how you don't feel the same frustration for Apple shareholder, especially long term guys like me.





    You are generalizing, bastardizing and miscontruing "investment 101", or perhaps you are making ignorant assumptions. What you, as a common shareholder, are entitled to can range from something to nothing. It is NOT true that anything of the company is yours. If you disagree, go into Apple and claim something, and see if they help you box it and kick u out on your ass as you deserve.


     


    If and when a company is liquidated, there is a possibility that you might be entitled to something. But until then, you own nothing but the shares. Even at time of liquidation, what a common shareholder (and you sound pretty common) gets depends on the by-laws of a company (that's the promise you referred but you clearly have not studied this promise). Likely, creditors and preferred shareholders get their fingers in the pie first.


     


    Now, I am going to guess you're going to argue that Apple is different because there are not no creditors and no preferred shares. But you were referring to Investment 101, which you need a refresher on. Furthermore, there are indeed creditors and preferred shares.


     


    Since you appear to not know what you are saying, "I will take you much less seriously on the topic."

  • Reply 54 of 119
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ecs wrote: »
    Sell that for $1900 and you have a PC killer right there. Low sales gone instantly.

    Do you know what the average PC sells for? It's well under half that $1900 price. Even among Macs $1900 is about $700 above the average sale price. For these reasons alone I don't see how this would kill all non-Mac PC sales.
  • Reply 55 of 119
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Challenge.





    Ohhhh, I like that. Succinct!

  • Reply 56 of 119
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

    Ohhhh, I like that. Succinct!


     


    I mean, yeah, it can come back to bite you when you're questioning an argument like that, but in this case it should be easier to find testimonies of his claim than the opposite.

  • Reply 57 of 119
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by xZu View Post


    It may appear that way, but my first Mac was a Mac Plus in 1988 (used), still my favorite was my IIci...yes i am old.  I have owned 52 macs since for my business, personal use and family (5 newtons, in fact). Your point about powerful graphics chips... a 680m is still a mobile chip, some people need more... I am looking to replace 7 iMacs that had their hard drives fail from heat every 18 months, repeatedly, for my business (I have a stack of hard drives to prove it). I am tired of running smc fan control at maximum just to use them.  I have two xserves.. I have to consider what to replace them with. All I am saying is that there is a portion of Mac users that do require a MacPro, maybe its only 5%, but it would be great if we could get updates, or better yet something that isnt a vertical laptop. They are beautiful machines, I will probably buy a new 27" for home, I have the last generation 27"... I want to replace my early 2009 Mac Pro I use with a 30" apple display and I don't want an iMac. As Steve Jobs said, some people are still going to need trucks... 



     


    I'm curious, what the hell is it you do that requires a Mac Pro, and not a "vertical laptop" as you call the iMac? The iMac is an very powerful machine, so tell me, what is that you do that an iMac or any other Mac can't handle?

  • Reply 58 of 119
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post


     


     


    Let me tell you a bit of investment 101: when I buy a share, I'm entitled to part of the company, be it 1%, or 0.0001%. I need no promise. Whatever assets the company have, minus its liabilities, are mine. That's the promise of the stock. With the cash pile sitting at $140B, I am buying a security that is backed by $145 per share of cash.


     


    Since you don't have any skin in this game, I will take you much less seriously on the topic. It's easy to see how you don't feel the same frustration for Apple shareholder, especially long term guys like me.



     


    I'm a shareholder, and I bought a ton of stock @ $650. I lost big. You're not entitled to a fucking thing. It's an investment, and investments are always a gamble. I'm rational enough to understand that the hammering of the stock is not rational, nor does it seem connected in any way to Apple's performance, but to other variables and unreasonable market expectations. The company is performing extremely well, apart from the stock- they just had a record quarter and record sales. There's no "quick fix" to raise the stock, and no sane person would demand one. I expect and have faith that Apple is continuing to do what it has been doing which has made it so successful, and it has products in the pipeline, as well as a long term vision. It won't benefit anyone for Apple to make knee-jerk decisions on their products and direction based on the stock price- that's ridiculous. All that will do is make them lose their focus, and have negative repercussions down the line. Any new product they come out with needs to be extremely well thought out and considered, and I have faith in Apple's team, and that the stock price now is a bump in the road. Alot can change very quickly. If they're going to attack a new market, they need to nail the product the first time- you can't make a 2nd 1st impression. This impatience by people that Apple should "do something" because of stock price is so idiotic, childish, and short-sighted. Apple still has the most solid business model in the entire industry, and the best and most wholistic roadmap. There's no other company on the planet that can do the combination of hardware, software, digital downloads, app ecosystem, the cloud, mobile, desktop, as they can. Not a single one. They're the only company that has a disciplined "vision", unlike everyone else thats running around with their heads cut off releasing something new and shiny every while. You have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to Apple, in terms of decisions they should make, so stop whining like a baby and pretending you're entitled to something. You won't be served by Apple making some short term decision to please shareholders- Apple needs to continue making decisions for the long term, and I doubt thats something you know anything about. If you have so little faith in the company going forward, just sell all your stock now, you're still coming out ahead at your average buying price. Look, as an example, of the massive inroads Apple is making in enterprise and education- business and educational insitutions are adopting (and in many cases mandating) iOS devices like there's no tomorrow. Android is getting zero traction in these areas. You don't see how this is incredibly beneficial? As for me, I'm not touching my shares. 

  • Reply 59 of 119
    xzuxzu Posts: 139member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    I'm curious, what the hell is it you do that requires a Mac Pro, and not a "vertical laptop" as you call the iMac? The iMac is an very powerful machine, so tell me, what is that you do that an iMac or any other Mac can't handle?



    Really? CAD, 3d rendering, video encoding, better games, anything that needs more then a 680m graphics and not everyone needs a Xeon processor. Its a marketing problem to.. "Macs are too expensive and aren't very powerful," I know thats not true.. but a Mac Pro is a workstation, an iMac has laptop graphics that are not upgradable, make something in between, that is all I am saying. And there is nothing wrong with a "vertical laptop".


    GTX 680 / GTX 680M

    1536 cores / 1344 cores

    clock rate 1058 / clock rate 720

    Texture fill rate 128.8 / Texture fill rate 80.6

    Bandwidth 192 / Bandwidth 115

  • Reply 60 of 119
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by xZu View Post

    CAD, 3d rendering, video encoding, better games, anything that needs more then a 680m graphics


     


    None of these things requires more than a 680M. Video encoding is CPU-dependent. 






    …and not everyone needs a Xeon processor.





    Not everyone is the intended market for a Mac Pro. It's a workstation, not a desktop proper.


     




    …make something in between…



     


    That's just the thing; Apple doesn't see a market for something in between. There hasn't been a large enough drive from Apple's users for such a market. And a piecemeal tower computer is exactly the opposite of what Apple wants to make. They're not an end-all-be-all-do-all company, and they're generally fine with the 80% of the market's needs they do cover. 


     


    Now, the Mac Pro update this year? Might change that a little. But you can bet it won't take sales from the iMac.

Sign In or Register to comment.