Credibility Gap

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Well the word is out, no 3GHz in a year. At least the update finally came (only 12 months later). But what will this mean in terms of Apple's credibility. Lets talk about other "promises" this year.



1. Xserves will ship at the end of February

2. iPod minis will bea availible in February

3. iTunes will sell 100 Million songs



Will people believe anything Apple says any more. There is nothing more disappointing than overpromising and underdelivering.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    So they're finally taking a page from MS.



    Seems fair, after all the opposite traffic.
  • Reply 2 of 35
    blablablabla Posts: 185member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    Well the word is out, no 3GHz in a year. At least the update finally came (only 12 months later). But what will this mean in terms of Apple's credibility. Lets talk about other "promises" this year.



    1. Xserves will ship at the end of February

    2. iPod minis will bea availible in February

    3. iTunes will sell 100 Million songs



    Will people believe anything Apple says any more. There is nothing more disappointing than overpromising and underdelivering.




    I have not much value too add, but:



    1.True



    2.iPods wasnt supposed to be avaliable until april for international customers ? It was pushed back to july.



    3. Jobs didnt promise that. 100 million was a goal, but they didnt manage to sell more than 70 million. OTOH, it doesnt matter for the end-user.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,431member
    Doesn't really matter. Consumers have short memories.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    2 & 3 are a little unfair. First the iPod Mini demand far outstripped their most optimistic expectations. Sometimes that happens with a product. Second, the 100 million songs was a "we're going for a 100 million songs" kind of statement. Not a promise, not even a prediction. It also helps (a lot) to keep in mind that originally...they thought they'd sell a million songs the first year.



    Apple is doing alright. No worse than any other company and better in many ways. They are certainly not to be compared to MS is terms of keeping/failing to keep promises.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    When was Longhorn first due out?
  • Reply 6 of 35
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jwri004

    When was Longhorn first due out?



    um...yesterday I think





    Apples over-priced and under powered macs at a mere dual 2.5 ghz is a large part of the reason apple market share has dropped to below 1%
  • Reply 7 of 35
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,294member
    iMac price hike shortly after introduction.



    Death of the CRT. (eMac is perhaps the most successful desktop going.)



    Original G5 ship date. Apple didn't just fall behind a little. They lied! They knew full well that VT would be getting all of the shipments and they strung other buyers out with false emails about ship dates and waiting till the last minute to say that it would be another month or two and so on. That was the biggest screw over of pre-order customers I have ever seen. People were buying them out of stores before many pre-orders were shipped.



    Apple credibility? How about the way they deny all defects in their products until people are ready to launch a class action law suit? iBook logic boards, white spotted PBs, and iPod batteries quickly come to mind. I am sure that all of you could add to the list if you tried. My point is that Apple has not been associated with credibility for a long time as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not they have as little credibility as MS is a whole other question. If you are just assessing their credibility in isolation, then they get low marks from me.



    One more thing...



    The iPm does speak to their credibility because they surely did extensive market research to project the acceptance of this product. If they missed it by that much, then it makes it look like they are just shooting in the dark with new products. Therefore, either they knew they were going to be short, or their market research team is as incompetent as their marketing dept.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    um...yesterday I think





    Apples over-priced and under powered macs at a mere dual 2.5 ghz is a large part of the reason apple market share has dropped to below 1%




    BZZZZZZZZT,



    Reading comprehension is your friend.



    Quote:

    Apple's share of global desktop personal computer sales to businesses



  • Reply 9 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    They do have a problem. This is why they don't make forecasts or use roadmaps: It's just not in Jobs' personality to make modest predictions.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    It's become a pattern for apple to not meet customer demand when launching new products. They just can't seem to get it together when ramping up to production. As a result, all the delays and impatience amongst customers. No one can predict demand for a smash hit product. But apple has had a string of successes and should now better gaging demand and managing its production.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha:

    BZZZZZZZZT,



    Reading comprehension is your friend.





    Quote:

    quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apple's share of global desktop personal computer sales to businesses

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





    You tell 'im Kickaha! Apple's marketshare is way better 1%!



    Hell, it's almost 2%!

    (1.81% to be precise... )



    Back to the topic at hand, Apple plays the same marketing games as every other big company in the industry. I've never held Apple to a higher standard than anyone else, so it takes more to disappoint me than this.



    Just use (what I like to call) the 70% Rule. Just take whatever marketing babble you hear (from anyone), multiply it by 0.7 and the result is what they'll actually deliver.



    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    ludwigvanludwigvan Posts: 458member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Apples over-priced and under powered macs at a mere dual 2.5 ghz...



    Some don't think so.
  • Reply 13 of 35
    aslan^aslan^ Posts: 599member
    Is it possible that Apple deliberately withholds a product to create an artificial scarcity which allows them to continue charging a premium ?



    Perhaps over long term sales, they can move more units if they dont satisfy the demand in the opening release. This could allow the perception of value we associate with Apples products to last longer.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LudwigVan

    Some don't think so.



    The 2.5 G5s aren't the problem, what about the 1.25 emacs and imacs. These are slow compared to the PC competition. No BS about the Megahertz Myth.... When your pricing puts you up againts the 2.8 and 3.0 P4s (not to mention the AMD64 floating in the imac price range) Something is wrong.



    If you can deliver, don't promise or mention it. Sinple as that...like the powerbook g5s. I wouldn't be surprised if they came out earlier than expected, since Apple is denying they wil be out.



    All companies exaggerate, it is a fact of life, but exaggerations and promises are very different things. And apple makes too many of them.



    Apple market research is obviously not getting the job down (see ipod minis), Apple had plenty of info with the preorders. Or the powermac fiasco last year.



    I am hoping Apple will be able to keep the promise of delivering these 2.5 powermacs, and delivers in quantity in July.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,431member
    I happen the think the eMac now is a nifty little machine.



    We can always sit back and view life from the inside looking out. The grass is always greener isn't it? Comparing hardware would be fine if they ran the same OS, however the tradeoffs are too much.



    On one hand you can have a fast CPU but driven by a rather bland OS.



    Or you can have a slightly slower computer built around an OS that is a pleasure to use. Take your pick.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    aslan^aslan^ Posts: 599member
    [edited]



    was in bad taste (trolling)

  • Reply 17 of 35
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,294member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I happen the think the eMac now is a nifty little machine.



    We can always sit back and view life from the inside looking out. The grass is always greener isn't it? Comparing hardware would be fine if they ran the same OS, however the tradeoffs are too much.



    On one hand you can have a fast CPU but driven by a rather bland OS.



    Or you can have a slightly slower computer built around an OS that is a pleasure to use. Take your pick.




    That is always the last refuge of the Mac hardware defender isn't it? It just doesn't matter what the hardware comparison is. The other guys don't have Mac OS X. Apple could offer some of you a calculator for $3000 and you would say it was a better value over a dual 5 GHz PC because the Apple product was running OS X. That argument is only good for those who drink the Kool Aid. How many years has it been since a PC desktop was offered in the 1 GHz range? How many years has it been since a budget/consumer PC desktop was offered in the $1500 to $2000 range? Why does it seem Apple intentionally puts in half the graphics ram and 2/3 the HD of the PC? Is there also a graphics myth and an HD myth? They would have a better argument for their processors if other components were kept up to speed with the rest of the industry. But as long as it runs a Mac OS, then what does it matter? Why do some of us seem to harp so much on hardware equivalency? Hint, Apple is a hardware company! No amount of software can change that.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    Just because it's the supposed 'last refuge' doesn't negate its enormous advantage.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    That is always the last refuge of the Mac hardware defender isn't it? It just doesn't matter what the hardware comparison is. The other guys don't have Mac OS X.



    Isn't though? I use OS X (and Win XP) every day. I hate XP (with a passion). It is horribly clunky and inelegant. While my machine might not the "latest and greatest" for power/performance/GHz/etc. and cheapest to boot...I am quite content and it gets my work done for me...smoothly...without (much) hassle and headache. EVERY time I fire up my old Windows laptop I am reminded of how good I have it with the Mac and OS X. Under powered? It does what I need it to do. Fact is...CPUs probably passed the threshold of what most people really NEED years ago.



    Finally...to those that think Apple's credibility it shot...okay, fine, don't do business with them. No one is forcing you (unlike MS where in many cases I AM forced to use their products). You don't like what Apple is doing...don't do business with them.
  • Reply 20 of 35
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    ....Fact is...CPUs probably passed the threshold of what most people really NEED years ago.



    Well, I disagree, 5 years ago, most people, basic home users, were only doing email and some web surfing, but now people are compressing their home music librarys for the iPod, and Itunes, and <$300 digital cameras have made digital photography a reality for the home user, and video is comeing along quickly, and imho, in 5 years home users will be doing HD on the home desktop.



    As the consumers use changes the cpu, ram, hdd, and os need to keep up, thus MHZ still matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.