Reasonable Expectations
I'm not asking for what you crave (i.e. G6, 22 in. iMac). Instead I'm wondering about everyone's general picture of Apple's capabilities and their responsibilities to their fan/consumer base.
I see it like this...
1. Apple is not to blame for the speed of their machines.
Apple made it quite clear that they were splitting from the mainstream (x86 architecture). We all bought into this because initially it had an edge and x86 CISC seemed to be near it's limits. This decision may still pay off with the G5, but expecting Apple to always be faster when so much more R&D is into making faster x86 chips seems unreasonable. At best the competing architectures will leapfrog each other periodically.
Frankly, with the exception of DV work, current CPUs seem to be more than adequate for most people.
2. Apple underutilizes it's brand
Simply put, most of us will pay a premium for something with a little apple on it. Not because we are sheep, but because as the iPod demonstrates Apple is able to apply their legendary ease of use to common devices as well as ensuring us that it all works seemlessly with our favorite and familiar OS.
Conclusion- Apple could make good money selling cellular phones, cordless phones, Tivo like PVRs, hard drive based camcorder, tablet computers, whatever, even if they only mostly sold to existing Apple customers.
3. We expect apple to bring it all together.
If it's used by most people, requires standards, or needs to interoperate with other software we pretty much expect Apple to do it for us. A common accessible address book, a common ap for mp3s, a common ap for mail, for appointments, for syncing, etc... We more or less embrace from Apple the same behavior we are suspicious of from Microsoft. So far, with the exception of .Mac Apple hasn't abused this trust.
Conclusion- Video conferencing, TV management, filesharing, office suite, etc... should all be there and be enabling rather than restrictive like microsoft.
4. Style matters
Ok, maybe apple will release a glow in the dark mac or a litebrite mac or something that seems cheezy, but at least they are innovating something.
I see it like this...
1. Apple is not to blame for the speed of their machines.
Apple made it quite clear that they were splitting from the mainstream (x86 architecture). We all bought into this because initially it had an edge and x86 CISC seemed to be near it's limits. This decision may still pay off with the G5, but expecting Apple to always be faster when so much more R&D is into making faster x86 chips seems unreasonable. At best the competing architectures will leapfrog each other periodically.
Frankly, with the exception of DV work, current CPUs seem to be more than adequate for most people.
2. Apple underutilizes it's brand
Simply put, most of us will pay a premium for something with a little apple on it. Not because we are sheep, but because as the iPod demonstrates Apple is able to apply their legendary ease of use to common devices as well as ensuring us that it all works seemlessly with our favorite and familiar OS.
Conclusion- Apple could make good money selling cellular phones, cordless phones, Tivo like PVRs, hard drive based camcorder, tablet computers, whatever, even if they only mostly sold to existing Apple customers.
3. We expect apple to bring it all together.
If it's used by most people, requires standards, or needs to interoperate with other software we pretty much expect Apple to do it for us. A common accessible address book, a common ap for mp3s, a common ap for mail, for appointments, for syncing, etc... We more or less embrace from Apple the same behavior we are suspicious of from Microsoft. So far, with the exception of .Mac Apple hasn't abused this trust.
Conclusion- Video conferencing, TV management, filesharing, office suite, etc... should all be there and be enabling rather than restrictive like microsoft.
4. Style matters
Ok, maybe apple will release a glow in the dark mac or a litebrite mac or something that seems cheezy, but at least they are innovating something.
Comments
<strong>
1. Apple is not to blame for the speed of their machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BUT they suffer from that fact. they are moving away from Motorola for that reason, and as their contract with Moto is now ending, things might just change. the hole G4 series must have been lived like a nightmare from Apple's side, not to mention what Steve feels. now they are in a position to move on, take action. i think they will, and that they'll do it with IBM. i think it's a fair 50%+ chance that they'll move to IBM as soon as their contract with Mot ends. what chips this will bring to our computers is not known, but to me overclocked G4's means and end(or start of something.
<strong>Well, this thread went to shit in a hurry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
50% more speed, 25% less price then?
A Digital hub device like a PVR with video conferencing capabilities for the consumer would be great. At work we use the ones with the audio seeking cameras so who ever is talking gets the camera's attention. Why sit in front of your PC when you can sit in the comfort of your living room relaxed with your other family member chatting with family or friends somewhere else? Integrate Sherlock with the device for a general purpose information appliance. Just my idea.
<strong>
50% more speed, 25% less price then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha he said resonable
10% more speed, 50% more price
IF that were even slightly true. I'd say. Thank Gawwwwwd. I'd like for once in the last almost three years...just once for Apple to bat one, just one cpu home run. Even if they had them at lower than expected clocks. Even if they could only ship one model, and stagger the release...,a dual 1.4 gig model to start with. Something to show a sign of hope. Yeah, we know it's coming.
But it would be great if they could announce early and ship late Spring. If Apple and IBM have been working on this as long as rumours say then I would expect an earlier surprise.
IF Apple are in the 'rumour' mill concensus of New York/Seybold announcement. Then, ala G4, surely Jobs and Apple and IBM could bust a gut and ship earlier eg this spring. (Don't get Amorph on the early release of new cpus.
Part of me says...could...Spring, if not San Fran' then Spring be G5 territory? If Kid Red is right about his Dual 1.4 g4s then I guess 'no' until September-ish?
The 970 chip is sampling 1st 2003. Production 2003 2nd half.
If Apple was a key partner, I wonder if they could get a preferential surprise announcement deal out of IBM? Late Spring. Der-rool.
I still say New York in the hope of being proved wrong of course.
"A Digital hub device like a PVR with video conferencing capabilities for the consumer would be great. At work we use the ones with the audio seeking cameras so who ever is talking gets the camera's attention. Why sit in front of your PC when you can sit in the comfort of your living room relaxed with your other family member chatting with family or friends somewhere else? Integrate Sherlock with the device for a general purpose information appliance. Just my idea."
And a good idea it is too. Cool.
I'd buy.
Lemon Bon BOn
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>"A Digital hub device like a PVR with video conferencing capabilities for the consumer would be great. At work we use the ones with the audio seeking cameras so who ever is talking gets the camera's attention. Why sit in front of your PC when you can sit in the comfort of your living room relaxed with your other family member chatting with family or friends somewhere else? Integrate Sherlock with the device for a general purpose information appliance. Just my idea."
And a good idea it is too. Cool.
I'd buy.
Lemon Bon BOn
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't iChat going to do video conferencing? So a Mac (pick a model - my Powerbook already works) with the proper video output to a TV can basically do this already, no? I don't see the need for the device, but a good way to sell more Macs
<strong>
Isn't iChat going to do video conferencing? So a Mac (pick a model - my Powerbook already works) with the proper video output to a TV can basically do this already, no? I don't see the need for the device, but a good way to sell more Macs
If the device was $500, it would be a good way to introduce a 'Mac' into a previously all PC household. This was one of the principal reasons behind the Windows iPod. Get people a taste of Apple quality...
<strong>If the device was $500, it would be a good way to introduce a 'Mac' into a previously all PC household. This was one of the principal reasons behind the Windows iPod. Get people a taste of Apple quality...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mmmm, maybe, but I bet said family would probably go out and buy a webcam, and a special video card that has svideo out and try and accomplish the same thing. Not that it would be worth a shat, but you know they would try it because it's a cheap way to do it. I've long since given up the "cheapest way first" mentality. It just don't work in the PC world.
Another question...
Someone (in some other thread covering the same basic topic) also suggested that in order for Apple to truly increase share (to get people's attention) they are now in a situation where they have to be much better at EVERYTHING than the Wintel platform.
I wonder, is this true?
Not sure.
What I CAN say is what works for ME:
1. Solid compatibility and interoperability with the Wintel world. I think they are doing well with this. Improvements still need to be made, but they are doing well here. One area for improvement would be getting more 3rd party developers on board...Borland, BEA, etc. are good examples.
2. Reasonable price/feature/performance balance. I don't need Dell prices. If I want a Dell, I'll buy one (and deal with the consequences of THAT choice).
3. Quality user experience. You know, many years ago, I saw a video of Tom Peters (management author and "guru") speaking to a bunch of execs. He was talking about Maytag (I think), and he was up ranting and raving. And he was talking about how Maytag had "segmented their market" (a fancy phrase bantered about by management "gurus"). And he shouts: "THEY WENT AFTER THAT PART OF THE MARKET THAT LIKES THINGS THAT WORK!" In the end...this is why I bought my iBook (and still love it!) My purchasing decision was not much more complex than that. I knew my budget. I knew my needs. I knew that I LIKE THINGS THAT WORK.
Exactly!!!
And what's to say that x86 exposure ends with the iPod?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>You know...I read (in some other thread covering the same basic topic) that back in the PPC 601-603 days, Apple DID have faster machines. Now I wasn't a Mac owner than (I took a hiatus to try NeXT and later Windoze...ick). But if this is true, and Apple was unable to increase market share at that time (NOTE: I am not necessarily in the "market share is king" camp), what makes us believe if Apple is suddenly faster right now, they would increase share?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're pretty much right. I've sold a lot of people on switching to Macs and none of them cared about the speed. For the vast majority of users (none of whom have ever seen a forum, much less posted on one) it's just a non-issue. Given current pricing, if Macs were slightly faster than Windoze machines, Apple sales would increase somewhat, but not nearly as much as most folks on these boards seem to think. Apple's best shot at significantly increasing market share is Microsoft's treatment of its current user base.
You just may be right...
How will Apple respond to Palladium..?
Open another 25 retail stores? Get to 100 retail stores and have Apple kit and a brilliant OS waiting for 'em?
Golly, even a £499 inc VAT Dell buster?
The iMac/iBook on 10.3 with 970 in the Pro' line is turning into Apple into the killer switch machines (soon as they dump Moto'...)
Come to me...2003!
Lemon Bon Bon
Sincerely,
Dr. Ledgard
At least 1Ghz-Apple is foolish to go below that mark.
If not-Jobs is an idiot..................................
<strong>I really like the post by Nostradamus !
Sincerely,
Dr. Ledgard</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean Nordstrodamus?
Don't confuse the two.
<strong>Low priced tower-$899
At least 1Ghz-Apple is foolish to go below that mark.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definately wouldn't mind seeing that.
5. They care (No, I'm not in the market for swampland property in Florida)
Granted Apple is a big multi-billion dollar for maximum-profit business, with all the Wall Street crap included, it is nevertheless perceived to be on a mission - it cares about you as a user.
Think about it for a moment. Microsoft is all about networking their different offerings to lock you up for life without parole (Windows, IE, Office, Outlook et all). While Apple on the other hand (iApps not withstanding) has taken a distinct Ad Hoc approach (you are in charge, what works for you, works for us).
Still, It wouldn't consume many calories to make a comprehensive list of the fruit company's shortcomings, but then again - who is perfect?