Another thing is that many PC users may not buy a Mac because they fall into the Mhz Myth. Apple can simply address this problem by stating what the Power PC's equivalence is to the P4. For example, Apple can state on all their products and force Comp USA, etc to have a sign that reads, "867 Mhz Power PC G4 (equivalent to a 1.7 Ghz P4)" If a PC user saw this, they may think twice about buying a Mac. Apple also needs to address this in some sort of advertisement as they sort of did with the famous "Snail Ad."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It could work but it might not. People might still just look at the speed of the G4 and not pay attention, even if it said it was equal to a 1.x GHz P4.
It could work but it might not. People might still just look at the speed of the G4 and not pay attention, even if it said it was equal to a 1.x GHz P4. <hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with you, but if you wrote it all in the same line, people would have to read it.
For example:
iMac G4
800 Mhz G4 (Equivalent to a 1.6 Ghz Pentium 4)
60 GB Hard Drive
256 MB RAM
SuperDrive
You get my point. It is all marketing. Apple needs to show PC users that we are not behind in performance. As simple as that.
The "MHZ Myth" is now the "MHZ Fact" and is a "GHZ Fact" compared to the P4 and soon with the AthlonXP as well.
The fastest PM 867 is easily outpaced by fastest P4 or AthlonXP system. The x86 systems are less expensive too. And as for dual 800 versus dual P4 Xeon or AthonMP well that even more of a huge lead for x86.
BUT trying to sell Macs based on performance is simply foolish and fortunately Apple doesn't need to compete directly on performance. Apple may have lost the performance race but it still holds a very potent mindshare on ease-of-use, coolness and 'fun'. Capitalizing on these aspects of Macs is a dominant strategy and one the Steve seems to be trying to focus the company on. The new iMac doesn't offer much in terms of performance (no DDR, ordinary graphics, etc) but it is very cool, hip and well featured. No one will care that its built using 'old' technology becauses it just so darn useful and funky.
The topic at hand is growing Apple's mindshare exponentially, right? If that's really what you wish to accomplish, here's the optimal way:
Call two friends and tell them to buy a Mac. Then tell them to call two more friends, and so on. It's then only a matter of time before Apple takes over the world.
The fastest PM 867 is easily outpaced by fastest P4 or AthlonXP system. The x86 systems are less expensive too. And as for dual 800 versus dual P4 Xeon or AthonMP well that even more of a huge lead for x86.
<hr></blockquote>
I never said that an 867 Power PC G4 was faster than P4 or an AthlonXP system. That is why I said an 867 Power PC G4 (Eqiuvalent to a 1.7 Ghz P4). If you don't think that Apple needs to start posting what the Power PC's equivalent speed is to a P4, then there will be even more lost sales. A equivalent to P4 stragety may not be a saviour, but it could at least get that one user that would have bought a PC over a Macintosh. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
AMD has had surprising success with their Performance rating system. In fact, its been a tremendous boost to their mindshare. No explaining is required to show why one cpu giving up 500MHZ of clock speed performs equivalent to the higher frequency CPU.
I suppose the hardest question is not should Apple pro-rate their CPUs but by what measure? I would shudder to use the Steve RDF Photoshop bake-off as metric. This would lack credibility. Do we only pro-rate on a select few Atlivec enhanced benchmarks to show the G4 in the best possible light? And which CPU do you pro-rate against? The P4 or AthlonXP?
Most people i.e. the consumers who are not Mac-aware don't understand or give a crap to understand that a G4 or G5 is in terms of performace. So if the model naming changes instead to reflect something people can already quantify then the pro-rate system would succeed. For example, instead of saying iMacII G4 800 say this is the new iMac 1700DVD. Then things could get interesting.
For example, instead of saying iMacII G4 800 say this is the new iMac 1700DVD. Then things could get interesting. <hr></blockquote>
Now that would be very interesting, Apple could release all their products in terms of the clockrate of the P4 or the Athlon. But one thing that bugs me, is how would Apple be able to do something like this with out doing Photoshop bakeoffs? All the PC manufactures could establish a council to tell people what the real speed of all the Processors are on the market. For Example, a 1.7 Ghz P4 is equivalent to a 867 Mhz Power PC G4 and vice versa. The council idea may be out there, but at least people would know what the real speed of their processor is to other processors on the market. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Comments
<strong>
Hell for the same price they could buy a digital camcorder and dvd burner. What do you think most people will do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they're really impressed they might switch regardless of price.
<strong>
Another thing is that many PC users may not buy a Mac because they fall into the Mhz Myth. Apple can simply address this problem by stating what the Power PC's equivalence is to the P4. For example, Apple can state on all their products and force Comp USA, etc to have a sign that reads, "867 Mhz Power PC G4 (equivalent to a 1.7 Ghz P4)" If a PC user saw this, they may think twice about buying a Mac. Apple also needs to address this in some sort of advertisement as they sort of did with the famous "Snail Ad."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It could work but it might not. People might still just look at the speed of the G4 and not pay attention, even if it said it was equal to a 1.x GHz P4.
It could work but it might not. People might still just look at the speed of the G4 and not pay attention, even if it said it was equal to a 1.x GHz P4. <hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with you, but if you wrote it all in the same line, people would have to read it.
For example:
iMac G4
800 Mhz G4 (Equivalent to a 1.6 Ghz Pentium 4)
60 GB Hard Drive
256 MB RAM
SuperDrive
You get my point. It is all marketing. Apple needs to show PC users that we are not behind in performance. As simple as that.
[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Mac_OS_X_Addict ]</p>
The "MHZ Myth" is now the "MHZ Fact" and is a "GHZ Fact" compared to the P4 and soon with the AthlonXP as well.
The fastest PM 867 is easily outpaced by fastest P4 or AthlonXP system. The x86 systems are less expensive too. And as for dual 800 versus dual P4 Xeon or AthonMP well that even more of a huge lead for x86.
BUT trying to sell Macs based on performance is simply foolish and fortunately Apple doesn't need to compete directly on performance. Apple may have lost the performance race but it still holds a very potent mindshare on ease-of-use, coolness and 'fun'. Capitalizing on these aspects of Macs is a dominant strategy and one the Steve seems to be trying to focus the company on. The new iMac doesn't offer much in terms of performance (no DDR, ordinary graphics, etc) but it is very cool, hip and well featured. No one will care that its built using 'old' technology becauses it just so darn useful and funky.
Call two friends and tell them to buy a Mac. Then tell them to call two more friends, and so on. It's then only a matter of time before Apple takes over the world.
Why has no one thought of this before?
-- ShadyG
The fastest PM 867 is easily outpaced by fastest P4 or AthlonXP system. The x86 systems are less expensive too. And as for dual 800 versus dual P4 Xeon or AthonMP well that even more of a huge lead for x86.
<hr></blockquote>
I never said that an 867 Power PC G4 was faster than P4 or an AthlonXP system. That is why I said an 867 Power PC G4 (Eqiuvalent to a 1.7 Ghz P4). If you don't think that Apple needs to start posting what the Power PC's equivalent speed is to a P4, then there will be even more lost sales. A equivalent to P4 stragety may not be a saviour, but it could at least get that one user that would have bought a PC over a Macintosh. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
AMD has had surprising success with their Performance rating system. In fact, its been a tremendous boost to their mindshare. No explaining is required to show why one cpu giving up 500MHZ of clock speed performs equivalent to the higher frequency CPU.
I suppose the hardest question is not should Apple pro-rate their CPUs but by what measure? I would shudder to use the Steve RDF Photoshop bake-off as metric. This would lack credibility. Do we only pro-rate on a select few Atlivec enhanced benchmarks to show the G4 in the best possible light? And which CPU do you pro-rate against? The P4 or AthlonXP?
Most people i.e. the consumers who are not Mac-aware don't understand or give a crap to understand that a G4 or G5 is in terms of performace. So if the model naming changes instead to reflect something people can already quantify then the pro-rate system would succeed. For example, instead of saying iMacII G4 800 say this is the new iMac 1700DVD. Then things could get interesting.
For example, instead of saying iMacII G4 800 say this is the new iMac 1700DVD. Then things could get interesting. <hr></blockquote>
Now that would be very interesting, Apple could release all their products in terms of the clockrate of the P4 or the Athlon. But one thing that bugs me, is how would Apple be able to do something like this with out doing Photoshop bakeoffs? All the PC manufactures could establish a council to tell people what the real speed of all the Processors are on the market. For Example, a 1.7 Ghz P4 is equivalent to a 867 Mhz Power PC G4 and vice versa. The council idea may be out there, but at least people would know what the real speed of their processor is to other processors on the market. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />