There are 2 iMac owners in my family that have owned multiple Macs in the past, and they will be dropping Apple in 2002 for their next computer purchase (soon). I will probably follow them, after being the owner of 4 different Macs. I'm the type of customer that kept Apple alive during the flaming powerbook, Type 11 crash days. When people like me and the other posters in this forum start jumping ship, Apple is in trouble.
It is really too bad, but the happy-happy Apple-colored glasses don't work on me anymore. When I look at Apple's desktop line-up right now, or any time in the past 2 years, I see what 95% of the world sees.
Cool design
Way too expensive
Missing software titles / drivers
Compatibility problems
Woefully underpowered
No demonstrable avantages
I really like the design and simplicity of the new iMac, but not so much that I'm willing to throw out so much $$. Same problem with iPod. Same problem with the Cube. Repeat ad infinitum, watch Apple's market share and revenues sink 7% -> 5% -> 3.5% -> 2.8% -> ??
The problem with Apple's business model is that they are charging premium prices for a not-so-premium product. In almost every aspect except design, Apple systems are very sub-par. (except the current iBook)
I was surprised at the MWSF hype Apple was generating, because I have felt that the days are long past when they could innovate a entirely new class of device. They piqued my curiousity, but it turns out I was right.
Apple may be the first with DVD-R or 802.11 or component X but their lead can only last a matter of weeks because their niche position forces them to use industry standard parts and protocols. There is no feature I can think of that I can't wait for 4 weeks for to show up on a Wintel system for half the $$.
The fact that burning CDs or creating a web page of thumbnail images is marginally easier on the Mac makes precious little difference.
I thought about a year ago that we were on the cusp of the 2nd great Wintel exodus (the first being in the 95-97 time frame). Seeing people around me dropping the Mac, and seeing potential target-market customers not even considering the platform just confirms what I was thinking.
the thing is: we are actually complaining! nobody complains if dell makes a shitty computer, we just go to hp or compaq and that's that. with apple it is different, we want apple to make good computers and we are prepared to pay a premium for it - the reason for us complaining is because we CARE. Apple and anybody else involved here should be happy with that.
true, apple will not change because of this board, we won't get 25 Ghz G99 tomorrow, but i hope that somebody at apple reads this and sees that EVEN within the "apple life-style people" there are a lot concern that the plattform is not really viable. You simply do not buy a product because the company exists today - you want to make sure that it exist when you sell your current hardware and buy new. I am quite sure (DON'T PROVE ME WRONG!!!) that apple will still be around in 4 years time and therefore i thought it safe to buy into the platform again.
this is also one reason for why market share is important. next time i buy a mac, i want there to be software for it and a buyer to my Ti550. Technically, of course, we don't really care about market share, we just want software-makers to find it profitable to make mac software. whether 99% of all pcs are macs, or whether one person buys 10 million copies of all software doesn't matter.
so what is the point in complaing about poor performance/price products? because
1. we care
2. we want it to be better
3. the only way we may possibly make it better is by complaining. shutting up or walking away is not a constructive way for us, nor for apple.
OK so lots of people are leaving, but hey, if 40%of the people in Apple Stores are buying apple for the first tiem then pepople are joining too. A natural eb and flow. There are a number of reasons to leave Apple, you need software that won't run in emulation and won't run on a Mac using native code, or you need raw speed. I don't have any PC's in my house right now, having given my last one to my nephew, and that makes me really happy. But for me, the only reason for buying a PC rather than a Mac is the expense. It is pointless talking about design and quality, if you can't get the same design and quality on the PC price at any price. Maybe it is just a very small difference, but if you want what a Mac has to offer, you have to get a Mac. To guys like PcMan, I would say, don't waste your money, if you are competent witha PC there is nothing on a Mac that is going to be of interest to you. But if you find PCs confusing and impossible to keep functioning, then you might be able to keep a mac up and running. You pay more for hardware that doesn't have the same specs, but you get an integrated design and better quality. I just gave my old 6100 with G3 card to my other niece and nephew, they love it. Their pentium 100, that it replaces is an absolute clunker by comparison. Notice, replacing a Pentium 100 with a 60 mghz mac and finding it way better? Maybe there's a lesson there. That is part of what you are buying with Mac. But there are other intangibles that over time become just as apparent. If you're not in it for the long haul, your not going to realize those intangibles. A PC is a quick fix for an immiediate problem, usually lack of money, or lack of appropriate software. PC users havve been saying their software and design are just as good as Macs since windows 3.1. Everytime it there's a change, they say, now we're just as good. It's never been true before, why should we believe them now?
norfa, I think you are quite right. I, for example, lingered for long time before i finally decided that it was worth the extra money to buy the Ti550. My boss bought a dell PIII 850 portable and, my computer was $500 more expensive - details:
better for Ti550:
0.3 kg lighter, more if the dell has 2 batteries
just as fast
1.2 inch bigger screen
DVD
5 h battery (bullshit though in X!)
firewire & s-video, ir
design
better for his:
3 years at place service
2 batteries (total 6 hours)
-$500
I reckoned that $500 was worth the extra design, loss of weight, firewire & ir, Mac OS X. If you are short of $500, then the decsision is easy... go for PC.
the point is, apple could easily have 10-15% market share. then we don't need to look for programmes and that stuff. i think apple needs to invest for the long term in better market share by lower prices, at least for the consumers (TiBooks are not consumer).
sure people come and people go with the platform, but I reckon: it is easier to leave it than to enter it. that we must do something to stop.
I LOVE THE NEW iMAC! not that i think it is very beautiful, the classic iMac is much better, but the coolness, distinctivness and flexibility makes it probably the best consumer computer on earth. slash $100 on the cheapest version (extremely expensive in Sweden - it costs 18.000 kr incl VAT, you get a no-name rubbish PC with CRT-screen for 5.000 ($1 = ca 10 kr). iMac is good stuff, but too much money. i heard that the classic iMacs are now 699 and 999. if true, then we are talking (i hope) good business for apple. classic adds market share, the globe adds profit. couldn't be better---
I too have been an avid mac user for many years and I CARE. But realistically, what future has the platform got if apple can't even get near today's technology never mind the cutting edge. We as mac users are the most demanding 'consumers' on the planet. For us our macs are more like collegues and partner's in crime than tools. We don't just want a computer we want a beautifully designed piece of kit that kicks ass. For the past two or three years apple has completely forgotten the kicking ass bit.
Yesterdays powermac stuff is tomorrow's imac stuff so if the powermac line can't cut it then what can possibly filter down to the consumer end?
I really don't believe apple's guff about so many alleged pc people buying macs for the first time at their stores. How many exactly? And more importantly, how many people who switched from pc for the first time with the arrival of the first imac stayed with the mac platform rather than switching back to pc?
I love the Mac Os and the mac way of working (even though I have serious issues with OS X and CLI, file name extensions etc) but despite the fact that even in the dark days I for one never doubted apple's ability to sutvive and come back with a bang - I'm doubting it now. What incentive is there for anyone to jump ship? People who but it for the 'cool' are not likely to be loyal mac users and thus not a particulalrly reliable market share. It is so sad that so many die hard mac fans are turning away.
Adobe has stalled photoshop, premiere etc and bought rights to DVD technology. macromedia is virtually non existent in X land. SoftImage and Max haven't followed Maya.
We bought 15 G4s when they were reasonable machines (at the very beginning) and have looked to upgrade for two years. But at no time has apple offered any powermacintosh at a price performance ratio that justifies the expense. So we haven't bought. So apple loses yet more revenue. I guess its the same the world over. How many adverts or articles about the new imac have you seen in non mac circles? I've now canvassed over 120 students (all with plans to purchase computers and all who have been using Macs exclusively for two years) and not one of them will buy a mac. Why? well:
They're too expensive
They're underpowered
You can't get the software
Buying hardware for them is not as easy as buying for a pc
"No but us uses them do they?"
Ok kids, what would you expect from apple?
Well:
"2.5 Ghz - oh and a couple of those velocity engine thingies"
"A kick ass graphics chipset"
"Where's firewire 2?"
"I'd really love to see DDR"
"I'm not sure. Maybe if they dropped the price"
"More software"
and so it goes on. btw these students are the same ones who not long ago fiercely defended their beloved macs against ridicule from wintel users in the college.
This is all true and it scares the hell out of me.
I really care about this company . . .(which in a way is sick, I mean, its only a commodity)
and I don't want to use PCs
but they need to make products that are respectable.
Apple has always relied on creative people, and now they can't keep even them satisfied.
I think those of you who said to the first poster to shut-up or go away are in some serious denial . . . .if Apple doesn't give the computers that can justify our elitism and can compare in rendering power and graphics chipsets etc, and at a cheaper price they will lose ALL of there Art school support faster than they can blink..... and from there to losing enough support to survive would be a simple slide down hill....
I think that thier hold on those art departments is really, at this point, due only to the fanatical love of the Mac Idea and style from professors like me, a love that is starting to become aware that it really is just like NASTALGIA --not worth indulging in.
The students allready know it . . .and since the professors are older than them they are immediately 'not hip' and are all old fogies so if Apple is held in asteem nastalgically (as it seems to be more and more) and only by the old fogie professors that force them to work on these slow, expensive machines then the students will turn against Macs as a Style issue. That would be the last claim that Apple still holds... or will be if they don't do something really serious soon.
so many agree that apple hardware is not what is should be. however, we should recognise one other thing - when apple had better desktops and portables we did not see a floodgate of new customers. A company may have for a short period of time substandard products as long as they catch up. The G4 was supposed to be the killer chip and it would have, had Motorola been able to produce them better, cheaper (and made them faster!)
I guess we will have to wait for the next revision G4 apollo/G5 for anything to happen. By that time G3 could be over 1 Ghz making iBooks faster than ANY pc-laptop (given that G3 = PIII * 30%) and with the 12.1 & 14.1 iBook could kill the market for consumers. The PowerBooks with Apollo or G5 at 1.2 Ghz (G4 apollo = PIII * 50%) would kill the top-of-the line pc-laptops.
For desktops, iMacs at MWNewYork, they should be above 1 Ghz apollo and $100 less - then we have competitive consumer desktops, getting more market share (selling as the iMacs when best). Pro ones should be G5 duals and also very competitive.
So I think that if Motorola can deliver Apollo and G5s at 1-1.8 Ghz by MWNY then Apple is back in business. This is, however, the last year for Apple to be able to survive on their fans alone (us here I guess). If things are delived, we should be able to look at some nice 2 or 3 more years!
that is what i am hoping for! by the way, I am no stuck with my Ti550 so I wouldn't really care if tomorrow the Ti-s are at 99Ghz, it won'tmake my computer faster. But it will make my Mac-life easier, more software and games, easier internet-banking and otherwise, and less scolding at these boards!
<strong>so many agree that apple hardware is not what is should be. however, we should recognise one other thing - when apple had better desktops and portables we did not see a floodgate of new customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right! I don't think even 2gHz G5s will make a difference. You've proven my point for me. Thanks.
Jobs said it himself long ago. When you are going up against Goliath, "just as good" or "10% better" will not win any converts. You have to be 2x as good at everything *at the same price point* or else it is not worth playing the game.
Apple is riding that fine line where it is almost not worth playing the game. They are nowhere near 2x as good as any given PC, an dthe numbers show it.
The only advantage they have is power consuption (but at what price?) and design. They have a small ease of use advantage, but nothing crushing.
Apple will never gain significant market share without a killer MAC-ONLY app or hardware feature. (ie CD-RW drives). The problem is their niche status prohibits them from using any non-standard hardware. Therefore the killer app/device is imposible for them.
Result? Slow attrition into irrelevance.
Apple started losing market share in 1995. They have continued to slide down since, only being stabilized for a moment in the 1998-2001 range by die-hards and short-lived iMac publicity. The die hards are starting to jump ship, and many first generation iMacers have not stayed with the platform after their initial purchase.
If "evangelists" have to "fight" to get people to buy Macs, that should tell you something right there.
As much as I hate to admit it, Michael Dell was probably right: It is just like SGI. Niche players with non-industry standard hardware will wither and die, period. We know how the story ends, the only question is how long they can hold on by their fingernails until they go belly up and pay back the stockholders.
dividend: If you consider buying a Mac look <a href="http://www.sendamac.com"; target="_blank">here</a>. If you can live with a english keyboard you cansave some money by buying it in Germany and having it shipped to you. If you want a desk top try talk to them about guarantee and stuff. Ice and TiBooks have interntional guarantee. Not sure about desk tops.
i am not sure about numbers, but i believe that apple has actualyy taken market share in portables - which proves the point that it is possible for a niche-player to survive, but it has to be of a given size - namely, that people feel that they can actually use it with sufficient number of programmes. Apple is still in the position the regain marketshare - but not for too long. 2 Ghz G5 would definitly stop the transfer of people from mac to pc and even bring forth the opposite transfer. I think it is sufficient if the new processors are at 1.4 Ghz or so... as long as adobe, microsoft, macromedia &c find it profitable to make programmes then we are quite safe. the move to a unix-based OS was a good one, it ensures even more software for the mac.
the stabilisation you talked about in 98-01 (more likley 00) was partly because apple did have competitive programmes.
but i agree with you, apple is on the fine line but they can pull themselves to right side of it - this year, not next year! 20-30 million computers is a good market. I don't think that a killer app is going to do the stuff, i don't believe in a one-hit wonder - i believe in small progress over time. remember, people still think that apple is iin dire trouble like before steve jobs #2. with new products coming out that sentiment will die and people may be confident to buy a mac. but apple needs to work with it, and apple stors or even showrooms if properly exectued is a good way. More direct face-to-face marketing in other words.
Comments
There are 2 iMac owners in my family that have owned multiple Macs in the past, and they will be dropping Apple in 2002 for their next computer purchase (soon). I will probably follow them, after being the owner of 4 different Macs. I'm the type of customer that kept Apple alive during the flaming powerbook, Type 11 crash days. When people like me and the other posters in this forum start jumping ship, Apple is in trouble.
It is really too bad, but the happy-happy Apple-colored glasses don't work on me anymore. When I look at Apple's desktop line-up right now, or any time in the past 2 years, I see what 95% of the world sees.
Cool design
Way too expensive
Missing software titles / drivers
Compatibility problems
Woefully underpowered
No demonstrable avantages
I really like the design and simplicity of the new iMac, but not so much that I'm willing to throw out so much $$. Same problem with iPod. Same problem with the Cube. Repeat ad infinitum, watch Apple's market share and revenues sink 7% -> 5% -> 3.5% -> 2.8% -> ??
The problem with Apple's business model is that they are charging premium prices for a not-so-premium product. In almost every aspect except design, Apple systems are very sub-par. (except the current iBook)
I was surprised at the MWSF hype Apple was generating, because I have felt that the days are long past when they could innovate a entirely new class of device. They piqued my curiousity, but it turns out I was right.
Apple may be the first with DVD-R or 802.11 or component X but their lead can only last a matter of weeks because their niche position forces them to use industry standard parts and protocols. There is no feature I can think of that I can't wait for 4 weeks for to show up on a Wintel system for half the $$.
The fact that burning CDs or creating a web page of thumbnail images is marginally easier on the Mac makes precious little difference.
I thought about a year ago that we were on the cusp of the 2nd great Wintel exodus (the first being in the 95-97 time frame). Seeing people around me dropping the Mac, and seeing potential target-market customers not even considering the platform just confirms what I was thinking.
It's too bad.
true, apple will not change because of this board, we won't get 25 Ghz G99 tomorrow, but i hope that somebody at apple reads this and sees that EVEN within the "apple life-style people" there are a lot concern that the plattform is not really viable. You simply do not buy a product because the company exists today - you want to make sure that it exist when you sell your current hardware and buy new. I am quite sure (DON'T PROVE ME WRONG!!!) that apple will still be around in 4 years time and therefore i thought it safe to buy into the platform again.
this is also one reason for why market share is important. next time i buy a mac, i want there to be software for it and a buyer to my Ti550. Technically, of course, we don't really care about market share, we just want software-makers to find it profitable to make mac software. whether 99% of all pcs are macs, or whether one person buys 10 million copies of all software doesn't matter.
so what is the point in complaing about poor performance/price products? because
1. we care
2. we want it to be better
3. the only way we may possibly make it better is by complaining. shutting up or walking away is not a constructive way for us, nor for apple.
better for Ti550:
0.3 kg lighter, more if the dell has 2 batteries
just as fast
1.2 inch bigger screen
DVD
5 h battery (bullshit though in X!)
firewire & s-video, ir
design
better for his:
3 years at place service
2 batteries (total 6 hours)
-$500
I reckoned that $500 was worth the extra design, loss of weight, firewire & ir, Mac OS X. If you are short of $500, then the decsision is easy... go for PC.
the point is, apple could easily have 10-15% market share. then we don't need to look for programmes and that stuff. i think apple needs to invest for the long term in better market share by lower prices, at least for the consumers (TiBooks are not consumer).
sure people come and people go with the platform, but I reckon: it is easier to leave it than to enter it. that we must do something to stop.
I LOVE THE NEW iMAC! not that i think it is very beautiful, the classic iMac is much better, but the coolness, distinctivness and flexibility makes it probably the best consumer computer on earth. slash $100 on the cheapest version (extremely expensive in Sweden - it costs 18.000 kr incl VAT, you get a no-name rubbish PC with CRT-screen for 5.000 ($1 = ca 10 kr). iMac is good stuff, but too much money. i heard that the classic iMacs are now 699 and 999. if true, then we are talking (i hope) good business for apple. classic adds market share, the globe adds profit. couldn't be better---
Yesterdays powermac stuff is tomorrow's imac stuff so if the powermac line can't cut it then what can possibly filter down to the consumer end?
I really don't believe apple's guff about so many alleged pc people buying macs for the first time at their stores. How many exactly? And more importantly, how many people who switched from pc for the first time with the arrival of the first imac stayed with the mac platform rather than switching back to pc?
I love the Mac Os and the mac way of working (even though I have serious issues with OS X and CLI, file name extensions etc) but despite the fact that even in the dark days I for one never doubted apple's ability to sutvive and come back with a bang - I'm doubting it now. What incentive is there for anyone to jump ship? People who but it for the 'cool' are not likely to be loyal mac users and thus not a particulalrly reliable market share. It is so sad that so many die hard mac fans are turning away.
Adobe has stalled photoshop, premiere etc and bought rights to DVD technology. macromedia is virtually non existent in X land. SoftImage and Max haven't followed Maya.
We bought 15 G4s when they were reasonable machines (at the very beginning) and have looked to upgrade for two years. But at no time has apple offered any powermacintosh at a price performance ratio that justifies the expense. So we haven't bought. So apple loses yet more revenue. I guess its the same the world over. How many adverts or articles about the new imac have you seen in non mac circles? I've now canvassed over 120 students (all with plans to purchase computers and all who have been using Macs exclusively for two years) and not one of them will buy a mac. Why? well:
They're too expensive
They're underpowered
You can't get the software
Buying hardware for them is not as easy as buying for a pc
"No but us uses them do they?"
Ok kids, what would you expect from apple?
Well:
"2.5 Ghz - oh and a couple of those velocity engine thingies"
"A kick ass graphics chipset"
"Where's firewire 2?"
"I'd really love to see DDR"
"I'm not sure. Maybe if they dropped the price"
"More software"
and so it goes on. btw these students are the same ones who not long ago fiercely defended their beloved macs against ridicule from wintel users in the college.
Steve Jobs - are you listening?
I'm still gonna kill myself
I'm looking for the best way to kill myself.
Killing myself is getting all the more appealing.<hr></blockquote>
Alright, sorry. I hate to be the big PC meanie here, but that's in really bad taste. Please quit with the melodrama; it's not funny.
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: poor taylor ]</p>
I really care about this company . . .(which in a way is sick, I mean, its only a commodity)
and I don't want to use PCs
but they need to make products that are respectable.
Apple has always relied on creative people, and now they can't keep even them satisfied.
I think those of you who said to the first poster to shut-up or go away are in some serious denial . . . .if Apple doesn't give the computers that can justify our elitism and can compare in rendering power and graphics chipsets etc, and at a cheaper price they will lose ALL of there Art school support faster than they can blink..... and from there to losing enough support to survive would be a simple slide down hill....
I think that thier hold on those art departments is really, at this point, due only to the fanatical love of the Mac Idea and style from professors like me, a love that is starting to become aware that it really is just like NASTALGIA --not worth indulging in.
The students allready know it . . .and since the professors are older than them they are immediately 'not hip' and are all old fogies so if Apple is held in asteem nastalgically (as it seems to be more and more) and only by the old fogie professors that force them to work on these slow, expensive machines then the students will turn against Macs as a Style issue. That would be the last claim that Apple still holds... or will be if they don't do something really serious soon.
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
I guess we will have to wait for the next revision G4 apollo/G5 for anything to happen. By that time G3 could be over 1 Ghz making iBooks faster than ANY pc-laptop (given that G3 = PIII * 30%) and with the 12.1 & 14.1 iBook could kill the market for consumers. The PowerBooks with Apollo or G5 at 1.2 Ghz (G4 apollo = PIII * 50%) would kill the top-of-the line pc-laptops.
For desktops, iMacs at MWNewYork, they should be above 1 Ghz apollo and $100 less - then we have competitive consumer desktops, getting more market share (selling as the iMacs when best). Pro ones should be G5 duals and also very competitive.
So I think that if Motorola can deliver Apollo and G5s at 1-1.8 Ghz by MWNY then Apple is back in business. This is, however, the last year for Apple to be able to survive on their fans alone (us here I guess). If things are delived, we should be able to look at some nice 2 or 3 more years!
that is what i am hoping for! by the way, I am no stuck with my Ti550 so I wouldn't really care if tomorrow the Ti-s are at 99Ghz, it won'tmake my computer faster. But it will make my Mac-life easier, more software and games, easier internet-banking and otherwise, and less scolding at these boards!
<strong>so many agree that apple hardware is not what is should be. however, we should recognise one other thing - when apple had better desktops and portables we did not see a floodgate of new customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right! I don't think even 2gHz G5s will make a difference. You've proven my point for me. Thanks.
Jobs said it himself long ago. When you are going up against Goliath, "just as good" or "10% better" will not win any converts. You have to be 2x as good at everything *at the same price point* or else it is not worth playing the game.
Apple is riding that fine line where it is almost not worth playing the game. They are nowhere near 2x as good as any given PC, an dthe numbers show it.
The only advantage they have is power consuption (but at what price?) and design. They have a small ease of use advantage, but nothing crushing.
Apple will never gain significant market share without a killer MAC-ONLY app or hardware feature. (ie CD-RW drives). The problem is their niche status prohibits them from using any non-standard hardware. Therefore the killer app/device is imposible for them.
Result? Slow attrition into irrelevance.
Apple started losing market share in 1995. They have continued to slide down since, only being stabilized for a moment in the 1998-2001 range by die-hards and short-lived iMac publicity. The die hards are starting to jump ship, and many first generation iMacers have not stayed with the platform after their initial purchase.
If "evangelists" have to "fight" to get people to buy Macs, that should tell you something right there.
As much as I hate to admit it, Michael Dell was probably right: It is just like SGI. Niche players with non-industry standard hardware will wither and die, period. We know how the story ends, the only question is how long they can hold on by their fingernails until they go belly up and pay back the stockholders.
i am not sure about numbers, but i believe that apple has actualyy taken market share in portables - which proves the point that it is possible for a niche-player to survive, but it has to be of a given size - namely, that people feel that they can actually use it with sufficient number of programmes. Apple is still in the position the regain marketshare - but not for too long. 2 Ghz G5 would definitly stop the transfer of people from mac to pc and even bring forth the opposite transfer. I think it is sufficient if the new processors are at 1.4 Ghz or so... as long as adobe, microsoft, macromedia &c find it profitable to make programmes then we are quite safe. the move to a unix-based OS was a good one, it ensures even more software for the mac.
the stabilisation you talked about in 98-01 (more likley 00) was partly because apple did have competitive programmes.
but i agree with you, apple is on the fine line but they can pull themselves to right side of it - this year, not next year! 20-30 million computers is a good market. I don't think that a killer app is going to do the stuff, i don't believe in a one-hit wonder - i believe in small progress over time. remember, people still think that apple is iin dire trouble like before steve jobs #2. with new products coming out that sentiment will die and people may be confident to buy a mac. but apple needs to work with it, and apple stors or even showrooms if properly exectued is a good way. More direct face-to-face marketing in other words.
to anders: thanks!