Could the whole cnet/thinksecret 'no powermac' reports be a smokescreen?
I'd say so.
Don't buy into it, I say... it's a week-before-the-expo-smokescreen. Truth be told, the PowerMac G4 needs an update badly, the Xserve alone proves this and the "new" status on products at Apple's site proves it as well. People want the faster processors, the DDR, the updated stylings, and the lower prices... the CPUs are available, and the motherboards and redesigned cases are so there, and ready to begin manufacture, if they haven't already. Why would Apple make the mistake of letting us down so obviously twice, and then release the new towers just a matter of weeks later? PowerMacs have even been EOL'd in Europe, too.. that alone should tell us something.
The only thing going against a PowerMac update is 1. the Crystal Clear promotion deal (and even that could have an explanation?like Apple did it to throw us off, or they'll continue it, or they'll limit it to the old SKUs, etc), and 2. all of these smokescreen rumor reports from not-exactly-reliable sources.
Now, which are you going to believe?
And the 17" iMac... that's just silly. Apple wouldn't risk further cannabalizing their 15" iMac sales... and a 17" monitor would bring the price of the iMac to well over $2,000; if it were on the top model, hell, maybe $2,400 or more. Who on earth would buy that instead of a PowerMac, or even an eMac? Apple just released this iMac 6-7 months ago, are they already going to upgrade the display?
I highly doubt it. But, the iMac upgrade is the more plausible of the two rumors.. if there is no PowerMac or just a promise of a PowerMac maybe a month or three down the manufacturing pipeline (Apple has done this before), I'll.. explode, out of disbelief of the whole ordeal.
Anyway, I fell for the suave and pessimistic remarks of these rumors at first, but after reading several key posts around the mac community I think I've come back to reality. You should try it, too.
I'm completely unsure about what to expect as far as Jaguar. I do selfishly wish that it would come out then, with a ton of great/new/unexpected features (other than those already uncovered in leaked builds), and be $99 in price. But the jury's still out on that one.
Don't buy into it, I say... it's a week-before-the-expo-smokescreen. Truth be told, the PowerMac G4 needs an update badly, the Xserve alone proves this and the "new" status on products at Apple's site proves it as well. People want the faster processors, the DDR, the updated stylings, and the lower prices... the CPUs are available, and the motherboards and redesigned cases are so there, and ready to begin manufacture, if they haven't already. Why would Apple make the mistake of letting us down so obviously twice, and then release the new towers just a matter of weeks later? PowerMacs have even been EOL'd in Europe, too.. that alone should tell us something.
The only thing going against a PowerMac update is 1. the Crystal Clear promotion deal (and even that could have an explanation?like Apple did it to throw us off, or they'll continue it, or they'll limit it to the old SKUs, etc), and 2. all of these smokescreen rumor reports from not-exactly-reliable sources.
Now, which are you going to believe?
And the 17" iMac... that's just silly. Apple wouldn't risk further cannabalizing their 15" iMac sales... and a 17" monitor would bring the price of the iMac to well over $2,000; if it were on the top model, hell, maybe $2,400 or more. Who on earth would buy that instead of a PowerMac, or even an eMac? Apple just released this iMac 6-7 months ago, are they already going to upgrade the display?
I highly doubt it. But, the iMac upgrade is the more plausible of the two rumors.. if there is no PowerMac or just a promise of a PowerMac maybe a month or three down the manufacturing pipeline (Apple has done this before), I'll.. explode, out of disbelief of the whole ordeal.
Anyway, I fell for the suave and pessimistic remarks of these rumors at first, but after reading several key posts around the mac community I think I've come back to reality. You should try it, too.
I'm completely unsure about what to expect as far as Jaguar. I do selfishly wish that it would come out then, with a ton of great/new/unexpected features (other than those already uncovered in leaked builds), and be $99 in price. But the jury's still out on that one.
Comments
I do anticipate Steve announcing new towers at MacWorld though... I just don't see them as being ready quite yet.
<strong>Agreed, but I still believe we won't see new towers until August sometime. I think it has more to do with Motorola getting their act together than anything else.
I do anticipate Steve announcing new towers at MacWorld though... I just don't see them as being ready quite yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ditto. I hope he does too, because I'll be atending the keynote. I want to be wowed.
iMac's, probably only speedbumps, put all those lovely extra 800, 933, and maybe 1ghz processors in them, boost iMac sales and still keep a big gap between them and the powermacs.
iBook speedbumps almost seem to be a given, but still a G3? gah.
seems obvious to me
It's a polar bear blinking in a snowstorm!!!
Hmmm... But what could Apple replace their current lineup with?
18" 22" 23"
But that would leave room for a 17" iMac...
WTF? Apple knows no one will spend $2000+ for an iMac.
They could offer 17" models at the same prices as the cureent 15" models, but if they did, they'd be making atleast $300 less per iMac sold, so...NO.
Besides, 18" isn't much better than 17" anyway. It seems like a pointless updgrade to me
I don't see them adding anything higher than 23" either. It's pretty much top of the line.
Maybe they're clearing the channel for identical display models with new casings?
Ah, there's too much conflicting evidence!
No one has any idea what's coming.
Apple seems to be controlling their leaks very well, this time around.
I frankly think they're pulling this shit just to confuse the hell out of us.
Bastards! They finally paying back the rumor sites for all those leaks.
Oh well...I only have to wait 6 more days and the madness will end.
[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
ship dates, yeah, maybe ship dates in august... but not updating the single most out of date product in their lineup would be a bad idea, and worst comes to worst, it comes out in 3 weeks instead of 1 week....
furthermore, the other promotions (for almost free cameras, $100 off ipod, etc...) seem to be gone completely... apple's already made its push to get rid of powermac's, i think they may not have been planning to introduce new form factor displays simultaneously, and realized it a bit late....
i really don't think this is as ominous as the rest of the world has taken it to be
by the way.... did anybody else notice that apple's newest store (flagship store possibly?) in SOHO NYC is scheduled to have its grand opening during macworld? this may not mean much, but i think its a cool tidbit...
<strong>Hmmm... But what would Apple replace their current lineup with?
18" 22" 23"
But that would mean 17" iMacs are a possiblity.
WTF? Apple knows noone would buy a $2000+ iMac.
Could they offer 17" at the current prices? If they did, they'd be making atleast $300 less per iMac sold.
So, I'd say no 17" iMac still.</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon guys, think this through a bit. 17" LCDs can be had for $600-$650, retail. That's $540-$580 cost. Given Apple's investment in Samsung should cut costs more and the fact that you can leave certain components out of the AIO display (power reg, connectors, etc.) I'm guessing that Apple's cost on a 17" LCD for an iMac is around $450-$500. That's probably only about $200 more than they were paying for the 15" LCD last Jan.
iMac prices are $100 more than at intro, but RAM prices settled, as have other components. My guess is that Apple is getting insane margins on the iMac, but wants to retain these price points for 17" machines, rather than do a price cut and then hike.
My guess is that Apple could replace the currently line up not only with the 17" screen, but faster CPUs (800MHz-1GHz) and keep prices where they are. Margins will settle to what they should be, and sales will pick up.
If they want to really go nuts, slip nForce 2 in there as well. The price estimated on the integrated graphics setup is about $30, so it's not a terrible hit.
And if monitors do turn over, the 15" is out of the linup except maybe for a wide aspect 15" (16"?). The resolution bump in the Ti and the eMac was the sign that Apple recognizes that 1024x768 doesn't do it anymore for OS X - except for the 12" iBook. Look for 1280x768 and up. I'd expect the 17" to also go away from 4:3 - it's too tall as it is now, IMO, and maybe to 18" or 19".
My 3 indications on a 17" iMac:
1) Increasing monitor resolution, even on the lowest end systems (eMac).
2) Apple didn't reverse the price increase even in the face of lagging sales.
3) 17" LCD prices have been dropping steadily.
<strong>Correct me If I'm wrong. But, didn't Apple announce at their last fiscal review that they were sitting on 15 weeks of inventory? It certainly hasn't been 15 weeks since that announcement was made. That is 3 and 3/4 months worth of stock. Don't count on Apple releasing anything new into that market space untill that stock is almost gone. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Normally I'd agree with you, but sales are sufficiently slow that I don't think Apple can wait this out. IMO, if Apple has a strong enough product to release (and it's gotta be pretty strong, mind you), they can use that to generate revenue and profits and move out the old inventory at reduced prices. Even with no margins on the 15" iMacs, it'd be worth it. That'd put some machines below $1k, and I think they'll move again at that price.
That said it makes no difference if Apple choose to announce new hardware and wait a month to ship it or just announce it in a month. With any luck a late announcement would just mean they are trying to squeeze a little bit extra in too.
In the end personally I wouldn't be too upset to see no PowerMac announcement and MWNY. New towers are coming and whether they arrive at MWNY or a little later doesn't make too much difference to me.
Apple disinformation??? Highly unlikely. It may be disinformation but it wouldn't come from Apple. If Apple outlined anything for investors (which is where the news outlets would have legitimately picked up a rumor) they certainly did not spread disinformation. Apple is a publicly traded company, they cannot purposely mislead investors about their future strategy. They can chose "no comment" but then the disinformation stems (as usual) from the bogus insiders that submit inside info across the net. Likewise Apple would be in similarly murky legal waters if it enacted third parties to mislead the public while select investors were given a diferent (honest) prognosis. So you see, this may either be true, or 'net-based' BS, but it is VERY UNLIKELY that it is 'Apple Disinformation'. It possible, afterall Steve seems to have a fetish for screwing with rumor sites, and done through a third party disinformation would be next to impossible to prove, but when Apple wants to screw with rumor sites it has it's legal dept and PR wench do that.
Cannibalizing. This word needs to be dropped from the vocabulary of would be prognosticators. Repeat after me, "A sale is a sale is a sale" A 17" iMac could certainly slot in without 'cannibalizing' any iMac sales. It would be a higher priced product with lower priced 15" product below it. Does having a 14" iBook 'cannibalize' 12" iBook sales? No, of course no, the notion of a higher price product cannibalizing lower priced sales is absurd in the extreme. Now if you want to say that it might 'cannibalize' some POWERmac sales, yeah some people might buy a 17"iMac instead of a powermac, but it's more a question of making a sale versus not making any sale. In the end you get nothing by holding the spec and price of your consumer offerings back in an effort to make pro models look good. Powermacs aren't selling well and neither are iMacs at the moment. I posted this in another thread and it bears repeating here:
People won't move from an overpriced pro spec to an underspec'd consumer price (though iMac is closer to prosumer in price) or vice versa. They'll use what they've got, or switch entirely. Especially for consumers, without a huge software investment, a mac-to-PC switch is as easy as a PC-to-mac switch. Apple needs to accept this: We're not dealing with a question of which mac to buy? We're dealing with the question of whether to buy mac at all? Better to sell that consumer machine than not sell anything.
You can certainly have big screen FP iMacs pushing 1800-2000 dollar territory even if you have "monitor not included towers" with similar CPU speeds as low as 1500-1600 because they're different machines for different markets. Towers have expandibility, caches, Dual display support, higher RAM and HDD limits. The idea is not to coral mac people into PowerMacs at all costs, it is to offer enough variation to get more total 'mac' people.
It's about options. People who can't get the option they want tend not to buy from you. Really, while MacOS may be better, the average person doesn't care, the switch is a simple one going in either direction.
<strong>Bradley, you know I like reading your posts, but you're just wrong, well, come to think of it, you may be right, but your reasons are all screwed-up.
Apple disinformation??? Highly unlikely. It may be disinformation but it wouldn't come from Apple. If Apple outlined anything for investors (which is where the news outlets would have legitimately picked up a rumor) they certainly did not spread disinformation. Apple is a publicly traded company, they cannot purposely mislead investors about their future strategy. They can chose "no comment" but then the disinformation stems (as usual) from the bogus insiders that submit inside info across the net. Likewise Apple would be in similarly murky legal waters if it enacted third parties to mislead the public while select investors were given a diferent (honest) prognosis. So you see, this may either be true, or 'net-based' BS, but it is VERY UNLIKELY that it is 'Apple Disinformation'. It possible, afterall Steve seems to have a fetish for screwing with rumor sites, and done through a third party disinformation would be next to impossible to prove, but when Apple wants to screw with rumor sites it has it's legal dept and PR wench do that.
Cannibalizing. This word needs to be dropped from the vocabulary of would be prognosticators. Repeat after me, "A sale is a sale is a sale" A 17" iMac could certainly slot in without 'cannibalizing' any iMac sales. It would be a higher priced product with lower priced 15" product below it. Does having a 14" iBook 'cannibalize' 12" iBook sales? No, of course no, the notion of a higher price product cannibalizing lower priced sales is absurd in the extreme. Now if you want to say that it might 'cannibalize' some POWERmac sales, yeah some people might buy a 17"iMac instead of a powermac, but it's more a question of making a sale versus not making any sale. In the end you get nothing by holding the spec and price of your consumer offerings back in an effort to make pro models look good. Powermacs aren't selling well and neither are iMacs at the moment. I posted this in another thread and it bears repeating here:
People won't move from an overpriced pro spec to an underspec'd consumer price (though iMac is closer to prosumer in price) or vice versa. They'll use what they've got, or switch entirely. Especially for consumers, without a huge software investment, a mac-to-PC switch is as easy as a PC-to-mac switch. Apple needs to accept this: We're not dealing with a question of which mac to buy? We're dealing with the question of whether to buy mac at all? Better to sell that consumer machine than not sell anything.
You can certainly have big screen FP iMacs pushing 1800-2000 dollar territory even if you have "monitor not included towers" with similar CPU speeds as low as 1500-1600 because they're different machines for different markets. Towers have expandibility, caches, Dual display support, higher RAM and HDD limits. The idea is not to coral mac people into PowerMacs at all costs, it is to offer enough variation to get more total 'mac' people.
It's about options. People who can't get the option they want tend not to buy from you. Really, while MacOS may be better, the average person doesn't care, the switch is a simple one going in either direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some good points here. But, the idea that "a sale is a sale is sale" is Dell's philosophy- not Apple's. A quick look at Apple's margins compared to Dell's, Gateway's, etc. illustrates that Apple puts a higher priority on gross margins than unit sales. There's nothing wrong with either, it's just Apple lives and breathes in a different market. The PC's have now become a commodity and the only way to maximize profit is to ship as many boxes as possible. Macs on the other hand are not yet commodities- at least not to the extent of PCs- thus the higher margins and their different model at maximizing profit.
Apple's "Switch" campaign is NOT intended to increase market share- contrary to what many news sights claim. It is simply a short-term effort to maintain previous levels of profitability. If the campaign happens to increase market share then so be it, but the increase will be ever so slight if not immeasurable. Apple does not want to go from 4-5% share to 10% overnight. A 10% share actually is probably more dangerous to Apple as a company than their current share. At 10% they begin to compete directly with all the other PC box manufacturers as a commodity player. A place that Apple, as long as SJ is there, will never, ever, ever, go. An attempt to transition would be disasterous and any CEO that tried it would bankrupt the company in about 2 years.
This post is getting way beyond future hardware...
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
<strong>
Apple does not want to go from 4-5% share to 10% overnight. A 10% share actually is probably more dangerous to Apple as a company than their current share. At 10% they begin to compete directly with all the other PC box manufacturers as a commodity player.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other box makers are in a commodity market because other manufacturers produce goods that are easily substitutable. Ideal examples are CDs or books--all the sellers stock identical copies of the product so they must compete on price. Dell constructs its PCs from the same standard parts as other manufacturers so they are very close to being commodities and price matter a great deal.
Apple will not enter a commodity market no matter how large it's market share. Unless it allows clones again - which is unlikely.
The PowerMacs are probably using a technology created by nVidia that Apple is not allowed to announce until August. There's no way around it. They can't announce the product at MWNY because nVidia would fry Apple for pre-announcing a product, much like Apple did to ATI a few years back.
It is possible that a new powerMac could be "shown off" with no specs or incomplete specs, but I doubt they'd waste time doing that. I'm sure the new machine is worth waiting for, so there's no need to get impatient waiting for an announcement.
Oh wait, why am I even typing this? A week from now I'll be the only person on this board because the rest of you will have left to buy a PC if I'm to believe everythign I read on here.
Rough calculations, so bear with me...
The base powermac is $1600. Apple's average margins are about 30% ($480), meaning 70% is manufacturing costs ($1120).
PowerMac sales have slumped these past two quarters. So much so, that they are at LEAST 100,000 units behind projections based on last year's sales.
$1120 x 100,000 = $112,000,000 = huge hunk o' cash.
If I were Fred, I'd bitch-slap Steve and make him wait to release new PowerMacs.
<strong>Oh wait, why am I even typing this? A week from now I'll be the only person on this board because the rest of you will have left to buy a PC if I'm to believe everythign I read on here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wouldn't that be fun?
<strong>
The PowerMacs are probably using a technology created by nVidia that Apple is not allowed to announce until August. There's no way around it. They can't announce the product at MWNY because nVidia would fry Apple for pre-announcing a product, much like Apple did to ATI a few years back.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This might be true, but the site posted yesterday said that there would be a <a href="http://www.hardware.no/"; target="_blank">July 16 or 17th release date</a> of the nForce2, so maybe nVidea is supporting Apple....
a thought...