I don't care what processors the powermacs have or if iMacs might take away powermac sales. Just give me the FASTEST available chip and I will be happy to give you my money!
I am curious about a couple of things now that the PM got bumped and the iMac is stagnating.
1. If PM sales are far behind iMac sales, why was the PM upped first when the iMac is so very overdue?
2. Since PM sales have been so poor, and the new specs aren't IMHO impressive enough to drive sales, why didn't Apple just drop prices on the older models?
It just seems that any investment in PM technology is wasted at the moment, since the speed bumps are dismal, and anyone who can maange to wait most likely will.
I would imagine that we are ripe for price cuts in the iMac line. Yesterday, the Screensavers made a big deal about the low cost of flat panel displays from manufacturers they've "actually heard of." (Their quote). And obviously, with today's dramatic cuts in price on the display lineup, this has to be a given. The question now is "When?".
The heck with gateway selling a $1800 17 LCD computer - they are selling it for $999!
I think we know what we are about to get. Up to 1Ghz with 133 and no DDR in any form. And what is worse, no L3. The price needs to be $1600 tops for this machine. And drop the stupid 5200 hard drive. What are they thinking!
I will point out that I have a 15 inch 800 iMac and I love it. But not updating a computer once in 13 months is a joke. Add to that fact that the crappy speed bump will last another 6 months is more of a joke. Think about this people, only 200 mhz increase in close to 20 months!
I love Apple and own a lot of Apple stock, but I say that if apple can't compete than they should get out of the business. Focus on what they do best. Software!
I don't care what processors the powermacs have or if iMacs might take away powermac sales. Just give me the FASTEST available chip and I will be happy to give you my money!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't anyone understand that Apple is doing what they can. I think Steve would love to give us everything we ask for and then some, but Motorola is stuck producing 1.42GHz processors on .18nm process. That is pathetic considering the fact that everyone else and their little sister is using .13 and soon (this year) to be on a .09 process.
IBM, please deliver so people can stop bashing Apple for doing pretty much everything they can considering the pathetic CPU supplier they must deal with.
And let's face it, I would still much rather sit at my desk with a Mac on it than a Gateway. I would be embarrassed to own a Gateway, to be honest. A company I used to work for decided they were going to forgo our local buying policy and purchase the corporate standard, which was Gateway at the time. I unpacked a monitor and the damn thing smelled like cow shit! :eek: I swear to God. I think Ted must have been smoking a big dube the day he decided to start packaging not only the looks of a cow, but the scent as well. Damn things fell apart, as well. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I am curious about a couple of things now that the PM got bumped and the iMac is stagnating.
1. If PM sales are far behind iMac sales, why was the PM upped first when the iMac is so very overdue?</strong><hr></blockquote>
ObVious: The PM revision was finished first.
Other possibilities: The iMac revision depends on the Mot 7457, which was supposed to be out by now, but got pushed back a couple of months; Apple realized that their consumer models missed their targets, and so it was back to the drawing board; the project to toughen that nifty arm to hold a heavier monitor turned into a nightmare... I'm sure you could think of more if you wanted to.
I don't doubt that Apple is pushing to release an update as soon as they can. That doesn't mean they'll rush some half-baked thing out the door just to do it, even if it means going this long with no update. If you're frustrated, then believe me, Steve's been counting the days. The iMac is his baby, and he's not known for being aloof or uncaring about such things.
[quote]<strong>2. Since PM sales have been so poor, and the new specs aren't IMHO impressive enough to drive sales, why didn't Apple just drop prices on the older models?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Because they'll sell more if they offer better machines at dropped prices, and
2) Because the "windtunnel" G4s pissed off a lot of their professional customer base, and they had to revise the design just to reduce the noise level. While they were at at, why not bump the components up a notch?
[quote]<strong>It just seems that any investment in PM technology is wasted at the moment, since the speed bumps are dismal, and anyone who can maange to wait most likely will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Over 150,000 people per quarter appear to be unwilling to wait. Even at last quarter's depressed average price, that'll be at least $600M in revenue, and perhaps more like US$1B, by the time the 970 is unleashed. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially if you run your operations as close to break-even as Apple does. This quarter should see more revenue driven by more people buying Apple monitors with the PMs, and perhaps an average sale price a notch higher too, because of the combination of the weaker base model and the more aggressively priced midrange model, so I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers turn out to be conservative - 970 or no 970.
All that said, I'll get back to topic: I expect 867MHz and 1GHz in the iMac, because that's what's in the PowerBook right now. If they switch to a 7457, that'll give them lots of room for regular updates - it might also allow them to start the line at, say, 1GHz across the board.
[quote] 1) Because they'll sell more if they offer better machines at dropped prices, and
<hr></blockquote>
'Gee, well I don't know T.C.'
Looks like Apple may just be waking up to that fact. What with their 'power'Mac sales taking the beating of their life year upon year for the last several years. Urh, and iMac2 sales being clearly disappointing.
If Apple can do what they've done to their laptop range to their desktop range then I can see Apple being on the road to increasing their installed base.
The price cuts to the 'power'Macs show much promise for the Apple year 2003.
Deep price cuts to the iMac2 will get it back to where it needs to be. Two models below a K and a couple above. With the top of the range no more than £1,350 inc VAT. Top end, you could call a prosumer machine and many have plumped for that rather than go 'power'Mac. But the rest? Consumer machines and should be priced accordingly. If they can make them 'worth the money' then I think Apple will have their 'retail store' foot patrol converting to buyers in droves. That's the key. It's alright have zillions of visitors. But can they afford to buy your 'power'Mac..? Now they can! And the promise of the next iMac2 round hints: yes, they can!
The price reduct on the 'power'Mac range is a welcome, but, let's face it, necessary move. The single gigger for £1,195 inc VAT reduces the entry point for 'Tower' switchers. £1,500 inc VAT ish for the dual 1.25? I'd say that is competitive to the Pentium 4 3 gigger. More impressive is that you can now get Apple's top of the line 'power'Mac for £2000 ish inc VAT? (Compared to almost £3K just a few weeks ago?)
Now, people, we're talking 'frontier' territory as far as Apple are concerned. I'm still picking up my jaw from the monitor reduct.
Personal gripes about the G4 (which, okay, Apple can't really help...) getting a top end 'power'Mac out with dual 1.42 gigs for £2,000 ish is...a C+.
January 2003 has put a whole different 'shade' on Apple's line up. It's bold. It's aggressive. And...gasp, it's...cheaper! Apple lead the industry on flat panel prices!!! (Apple lead anybody on price! I'm still in shock...)
Stick a 970 in the current 'power'Mac price bracket this September...and...
Not only will I be impressed...but I'll get the wallet out.
Comments
I don't care what processors the powermacs have or if iMacs might take away powermac sales. Just give me the FASTEST available chip and I will be happy to give you my money!
Sincerely,
Orthodoc
PS - please do it soon, you are pissing me off
1. If PM sales are far behind iMac sales, why was the PM upped first when the iMac is so very overdue?
2. Since PM sales have been so poor, and the new specs aren't IMHO impressive enough to drive sales, why didn't Apple just drop prices on the older models?
It just seems that any investment in PM technology is wasted at the moment, since the speed bumps are dismal, and anyone who can maange to wait most likely will.
Joe
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Joe O ]</p>
I think we know what we are about to get. Up to 1Ghz with 133 and no DDR in any form. And what is worse, no L3. The price needs to be $1600 tops for this machine. And drop the stupid 5200 hard drive. What are they thinking!
I will point out that I have a 15 inch 800 iMac and I love it. But not updating a computer once in 13 months is a joke. Add to that fact that the crappy speed bump will last another 6 months is more of a joke. Think about this people, only 200 mhz increase in close to 20 months!
I love Apple and own a lot of Apple stock, but I say that if apple can't compete than they should get out of the business. Focus on what they do best. Software!
<strong>Dear Steve,
I don't care what processors the powermacs have or if iMacs might take away powermac sales. Just give me the FASTEST available chip and I will be happy to give you my money!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't anyone understand that Apple is doing what they can. I think Steve would love to give us everything we ask for and then some, but Motorola is stuck producing 1.42GHz processors on .18nm process. That is pathetic considering the fact that everyone else and their little sister is using .13 and soon (this year) to be on a .09 process.
IBM, please deliver so people can stop bashing Apple for doing pretty much everything they can considering the pathetic CPU supplier they must deal with.
And let's face it, I would still much rather sit at my desk with a Mac on it than a Gateway. I would be embarrassed to own a Gateway, to be honest. A company I used to work for decided they were going to forgo our local buying policy and purchase the corporate standard, which was Gateway at the time. I unpacked a monitor and the damn thing smelled like cow shit! :eek: I swear to God. I think Ted must have been smoking a big dube the day he decided to start packaging not only the looks of a cow, but the scent as well. Damn things fell apart, as well. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I am curious about a couple of things now that the PM got bumped and the iMac is stagnating.
1. If PM sales are far behind iMac sales, why was the PM upped first when the iMac is so very overdue?</strong><hr></blockquote>
ObVious: The PM revision was finished first.
Other possibilities: The iMac revision depends on the Mot 7457, which was supposed to be out by now, but got pushed back a couple of months; Apple realized that their consumer models missed their targets, and so it was back to the drawing board; the project to toughen that nifty arm to hold a heavier monitor turned into a nightmare... I'm sure you could think of more if you wanted to.
I don't doubt that Apple is pushing to release an update as soon as they can. That doesn't mean they'll rush some half-baked thing out the door just to do it, even if it means going this long with no update. If you're frustrated, then believe me, Steve's been counting the days. The iMac is his baby, and he's not known for being aloof or uncaring about such things.
[quote]<strong>2. Since PM sales have been so poor, and the new specs aren't IMHO impressive enough to drive sales, why didn't Apple just drop prices on the older models?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Because they'll sell more if they offer better machines at dropped prices, and
2) Because the "windtunnel" G4s pissed off a lot of their professional customer base, and they had to revise the design just to reduce the noise level. While they were at at, why not bump the components up a notch?
[quote]<strong>It just seems that any investment in PM technology is wasted at the moment, since the speed bumps are dismal, and anyone who can maange to wait most likely will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Over 150,000 people per quarter appear to be unwilling to wait. Even at last quarter's depressed average price, that'll be at least $600M in revenue, and perhaps more like US$1B, by the time the 970 is unleashed. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially if you run your operations as close to break-even as Apple does. This quarter should see more revenue driven by more people buying Apple monitors with the PMs, and perhaps an average sale price a notch higher too, because of the combination of the weaker base model and the more aggressively priced midrange model, so I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers turn out to be conservative - 970 or no 970.
All that said, I'll get back to topic: I expect 867MHz and 1GHz in the iMac, because that's what's in the PowerBook right now. If they switch to a 7457, that'll give them lots of room for regular updates - it might also allow them to start the line at, say, 1GHz across the board.
<hr></blockquote>
'Gee, well I don't know T.C.'
Looks like Apple may just be waking up to that fact. What with their 'power'Mac sales taking the beating of their life year upon year for the last several years. Urh, and iMac2 sales being clearly disappointing.
If Apple can do what they've done to their laptop range to their desktop range then I can see Apple being on the road to increasing their installed base.
The price cuts to the 'power'Macs show much promise for the Apple year 2003.
Deep price cuts to the iMac2 will get it back to where it needs to be. Two models below a K and a couple above. With the top of the range no more than £1,350 inc VAT. Top end, you could call a prosumer machine and many have plumped for that rather than go 'power'Mac. But the rest? Consumer machines and should be priced accordingly. If they can make them 'worth the money' then I think Apple will have their 'retail store' foot patrol converting to buyers in droves. That's the key. It's alright have zillions of visitors. But can they afford to buy your 'power'Mac..? Now they can! And the promise of the next iMac2 round hints: yes, they can!
The price reduct on the 'power'Mac range is a welcome, but, let's face it, necessary move. The single gigger for £1,195 inc VAT reduces the entry point for 'Tower' switchers. £1,500 inc VAT ish for the dual 1.25? I'd say that is competitive to the Pentium 4 3 gigger. More impressive is that you can now get Apple's top of the line 'power'Mac for £2000 ish inc VAT? (Compared to almost £3K just a few weeks ago?)
Now, people, we're talking 'frontier' territory as far as Apple are concerned. I'm still picking up my jaw from the monitor reduct.
Personal gripes about the G4 (which, okay, Apple can't really help...) getting a top end 'power'Mac out with dual 1.42 gigs for £2,000 ish is...a C+.
January 2003 has put a whole different 'shade' on Apple's line up. It's bold. It's aggressive. And...gasp, it's...cheaper! Apple lead the industry on flat panel prices!!! (Apple lead anybody on price! I'm still in shock...)
Stick a 970 in the current 'power'Mac price bracket this September...and...
Not only will I be impressed...but I'll get the wallet out.
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>