I'm betting that the high end iMac will be the sweet spot and will be first available. Worked that way when I bought my 12" PB (rev a) and my iMac. (rev d) if I recall correctly.
I'm betting that the high end iMac will be the sweet spot and will be first available. Worked that way when I bought my 12" PB (rev a) and my iMac. (rev d) if I recall correctly.
I disagree, Apple has a habit of shipping low end stuff first and working its way up in fact i would almost bet that the 1.8 G5 imac wont ship for awhile based on Apples history.
Now, while the above specs are better then the current iMac's (which was selling so poorly that Apple discontinued them two months before the replacements were ready because they were not worth keeping in stock) the new iMac is not quite what one would expect for machine made to breathe new life into a failing line.
Apple discontinued the second generation iMacs because they were hoping to have the third generation ready for shipping by the time their current stock was empty, *not* because they were selling so poorly that they were not worth keeping in stock.
Apple discontinued the second generation iMacs because they were hoping to have the third generation ready for shipping by the time their current stock was empty, *not* because they were selling so poorly that they were not worth keeping in stock.
you are wrong, apples iMac has been a very poor seller for Apple the past 11/2 years. this is why they added Emac to Imac numbers to prop them up and guess what they never did add up to what the fruity imacs did in sales. iMac didnt get a redo because it was a great seller the only problem is Apple seems to be locked into a mindset that only All in ones will be marketed for the consumer market. this is a mistake by Apple.
you are wrong, apples iMac has been a very poor seller for Apple the past 11/2 years. this is why they added Emac to Imac numbers to prop them up and guess what they never did add up to what the fruity imacs did in sales. iMac didnt get a redo because it was a great seller the only problem is Apple seems to be locked into a mindset that only All in ones will be marketed for the consumer market. this is a mistake by Apple.
No I am not wrong! Never did I argue that the iMac wasn't a poor seller. I was merely pointing out that Apple didn't *intentionally* choose to have a several month gap of selling no iMacs at all, simply because the current models weren't selling very well.
Right here and now I predict that the next iMac will outsell the original, meaning more than 6 million units in its life span.
It may sell more in it's lifespan, but only if it's lifespan is double that of the original. Far too many people either don't want an AIO desktop or would rather get a laptop that fits the AIO model better (IE AIO only works well if it's portable).
These iMacs may be decent value for the money, however they do NOT address the real problem w/ the iMac2. That is lack of choice. Basically once again Apple intends to market 2 systems w/ a choice of 2 monitors on one of those systems. If they really wanted to sell iMacs in droves they'd have 3 base units w/ 15" LCDs that would have the option of upgrading to 17" or 20" LCDs. If they wanted to sell iMacs into markets they currently refuse to consider (90% or more of the consumer market), they'd sell the base model w/o any monitor and w/ an upgradeable graphics card.
I can see how those things can be done easily, most of you should able to as well. I do believe that Ives could come up w/ a way to make such a system elegant looking.
Apple chooses not to do either of those things and therefore they choose to maintain a marketshare of 3% or less. Some of you think this is actually good, fine you are entitled to your opinion. However many developers look at that marketshare number and make decisions based on it. Personally I like having some choice in software, no I don't really want the amount of choice (often drek) that there is for Windows, some choice would be nice though. I think a marketshare of around 7% isn't asking a lot.
... Speaking of which, my powerbook died and I need to get another one very soon, should I wait (because of the evidence found in the 10.3.5 kext files)? Or should I get another g4?
1. Hedge your bets and get the 14" iBook at 1.25GHz. Or get a used TiBook. You'll save money, and you can sell it when the Powerbook G5 comes out late next year.
2. What's wrong with your PB? Why can't you get it fixed?
1. Hedge your bets and get the 14" iBook at 1.25GHz. Or get a used TiBook. You'll save money, and you can sell it when the Powerbook G5 comes out late next year.
2. What's wrong with your PB? Why can't you get it fixed?
well a bad firewire cable fried the firewire port. and now when i burn a cd the screen shuts off while verifying the disk. its also 2 1/2 years old and i need a new one as its my main work computer. this sucks though because i have to basically give it away because i can't really sell it.
Apple chooses not to do either of those things and therefore they choose to maintain a marketshare of 3% or less. Some of you think this is actually good, fine you are entitled to your opinion. However many developers look at that marketshare number and make decisions based on it. Personally I like having some choice in software, no I don't really want the amount of choice (often drek) that there is for Windows, some choice would be nice though. I think a marketshare of around 7% isn't asking a lot.
Incorrect, developers look at an installed user base, not market share, when deciding if it would be financially intelligent to develop software for a certain platform.
Don't be foolish. If Apple sells about 4.5 million Macs a year, added on to a user base of about 30 million, the platform remains a sound investment for developers.
Look at the Gamecube or any game console. Developers make software for the Gamecube, which has sold less than 11 million units since it's introduction...and it only costs $99. Imagine that.
Don't be foolish. If Apple sells about 4.5 million Macs a year, added on to a user base of about 30 million, the platform remains a sound investment for developers.
I really doubt the installed user base is 30 million units, since Apple is selling less than 4 million units/year. If im not mistaking, Apple sold 5 million units in the top unit selling year 1995. After that, only a couple of years have resulted in more than 4 million units sold, and some years Apple sold less than 3 million units(!). Also, the older hardware, the less likely you are to buy new software. Its pretty realistic that the installed user base is smaller now than in the mid 90is.
I really doubt the installed user base is 30 million units, since Apple is selling less than 4 million units/year. If im not mistaking, Apple sold 5 million units in the top unit selling year 1995. After that, only a couple of years have resulted in more than 4 million units sold, and some years Apple sold less than 3 million units(!). Also, the older hardware, the less likely you are to buy new software. Its pretty realistic that the installed user base is smaller now than in the mid 90is.
Apple's installed user base, including older systems is about 30 million people. OS X has about 13 million users and counting, the others have yet to upgrade. But, you know what they say, "once you go Mac, you dont go back."
Steve Jobs quotes numbers in the San Francisco Keynote from January of this year.
OS X is doing better then Nintendo. Food for thought.
So the 13 million is the number that matters to developers. People who haven't updated their OS in the last five years are not buying a lot of software.
Also, the Nintendo market is a lot more focused than the Mac market. Nintendo users buy games. Many Mac users don't buy anything.
"Once you go Mac you don't go back"-- what a joke. I would like to compare the size of the former Mac population to the current Mac population.
Apple has a loyal user base, but you know that already. Apple's market share is not growing very much, but the user base continunes to expand by millions a year, which makes the platform more and more viable for developers, all the time.
Apple is not in any danger of losing key support right now.
Apple's installed user base, including older systems is about 30 million people. OS X has about 13 million users and counting, the others have yet to upgrade. But, you know what they say, "once you go Mac, you dont go back."
Steve Jobs quotes numbers in the San Francisco Keynote from January of this year.
OS X is doing better then Nintendo. Food for thought.
And let's face it. Macs have slower replacing cycles. People keep their macs for longer than they keep their PCs. I've seen it with myself and with other mac users. I've even seen teachers at my university who don't get rid of their old macs even after they've gotten newer PCs. People just don't throw them away. They're special. And they're also more expensive, that's why you don't get a new mac that easily too. (They have lower TCO, in my opinion anyway, but that's another story.)
I don't think OS X is doing better than nintendo. The installed user base of the gameboy alone is should be larger than 13 million. They're selling since 1989.
I think that US sales of the GC are around 10 million. The subtle difference is that you can only play games on a GC, so for a developer their potential market is 10 million users. On OS X there are many different uses. Any given piece of software will only sell to a limit set of OS X users.
Quote:
And if you want to count total Mac units in history versus total gameboy units, it wouldnt be far from close.
170 million gameboys, how many Macs? not that many. Absolutly highest estimate would be 4 million a year, for 20 years, 80 million. But it is a rare quarter that Apple topped 1 million units.
I think that US sales of the GC are around 10 million. The subtle difference is that you can only play games on a GC, so for a developer their potential market is 10 million users. On OS X there are many different uses. Any given piece of software will only sell to a limit set of OS X users.
170 million gameboys, how many Macs? not that many. Absolutly highest estimate would be 4 million a year, for 20 years, 80 million. But it is a rare quarter that Apple topped 1 million units.
My point was that more people bought a Mac than have bought a GC. A Mac at the minimum cost is 800 dollars, a GC is 100 dollars.
Again, even though the Gameboy has outsold the Mac, look at the unit price of each.
Comments
Originally posted by kcmac
I'm betting that the high end iMac will be the sweet spot and will be first available. Worked that way when I bought my 12" PB (rev a) and my iMac. (rev d) if I recall correctly.
I disagree, Apple has a habit of shipping low end stuff first and working its way up in fact i would almost bet that the 1.8 G5 imac wont ship for awhile based on Apples history.
Originally posted by Res
Now, while the above specs are better then the current iMac's (which was selling so poorly that Apple discontinued them two months before the replacements were ready because they were not worth keeping in stock) the new iMac is not quite what one would expect for machine made to breathe new life into a failing line.
Apple discontinued the second generation iMacs because they were hoping to have the third generation ready for shipping by the time their current stock was empty, *not* because they were selling so poorly that they were not worth keeping in stock.
Originally posted by Gavriel
Apple discontinued the second generation iMacs because they were hoping to have the third generation ready for shipping by the time their current stock was empty, *not* because they were selling so poorly that they were not worth keeping in stock.
you are wrong, apples iMac has been a very poor seller for Apple the past 11/2 years. this is why they added Emac to Imac numbers to prop them up and guess what they never did add up to what the fruity imacs did in sales. iMac didnt get a redo because it was a great seller the only problem is Apple seems to be locked into a mindset that only All in ones will be marketed for the consumer market. this is a mistake by Apple.
Originally posted by Aurora
you are wrong, apples iMac has been a very poor seller for Apple the past 11/2 years. this is why they added Emac to Imac numbers to prop them up and guess what they never did add up to what the fruity imacs did in sales. iMac didnt get a redo because it was a great seller the only problem is Apple seems to be locked into a mindset that only All in ones will be marketed for the consumer market. this is a mistake by Apple.
No I am not wrong! Never did I argue that the iMac wasn't a poor seller. I was merely pointing out that Apple didn't *intentionally* choose to have a several month gap of selling no iMacs at all, simply because the current models weren't selling very well.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Right here and now I predict that the next iMac will outsell the original, meaning more than 6 million units in its life span.
It may sell more in it's lifespan, but only if it's lifespan is double that of the original. Far too many people either don't want an AIO desktop or would rather get a laptop that fits the AIO model better (IE AIO only works well if it's portable).
These iMacs may be decent value for the money, however they do NOT address the real problem w/ the iMac2. That is lack of choice. Basically once again Apple intends to market 2 systems w/ a choice of 2 monitors on one of those systems. If they really wanted to sell iMacs in droves they'd have 3 base units w/ 15" LCDs that would have the option of upgrading to 17" or 20" LCDs. If they wanted to sell iMacs into markets they currently refuse to consider (90% or more of the consumer market), they'd sell the base model w/o any monitor and w/ an upgradeable graphics card.
I can see how those things can be done easily, most of you should able to as well. I do believe that Ives could come up w/ a way to make such a system elegant looking.
Apple chooses not to do either of those things and therefore they choose to maintain a marketshare of 3% or less. Some of you think this is actually good, fine you are entitled to your opinion. However many developers look at that marketshare number and make decisions based on it. Personally I like having some choice in software, no I don't really want the amount of choice (often drek) that there is for Windows, some choice would be nice though. I think a marketshare of around 7% isn't asking a lot.
Originally posted by ouroboros
... Speaking of which, my powerbook died and I need to get another one very soon, should I wait (because of the evidence found in the 10.3.5 kext files)? Or should I get another g4?
1. Hedge your bets and get the 14" iBook at 1.25GHz. Or get a used TiBook. You'll save money, and you can sell it when the Powerbook G5 comes out late next year.
2. What's wrong with your PB? Why can't you get it fixed?
Originally posted by cubist
1. Hedge your bets and get the 14" iBook at 1.25GHz. Or get a used TiBook. You'll save money, and you can sell it when the Powerbook G5 comes out late next year.
2. What's wrong with your PB? Why can't you get it fixed?
well a bad firewire cable fried the firewire port. and now when i burn a cd the screen shuts off while verifying the disk. its also 2 1/2 years old and i need a new one as its my main work computer. this sucks though because i have to basically give it away because i can't really sell it.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Apple chooses not to do either of those things and therefore they choose to maintain a marketshare of 3% or less. Some of you think this is actually good, fine you are entitled to your opinion. However many developers look at that marketshare number and make decisions based on it. Personally I like having some choice in software, no I don't really want the amount of choice (often drek) that there is for Windows, some choice would be nice though. I think a marketshare of around 7% isn't asking a lot.
Incorrect, developers look at an installed user base, not market share, when deciding if it would be financially intelligent to develop software for a certain platform.
Don't be foolish. If Apple sells about 4.5 million Macs a year, added on to a user base of about 30 million, the platform remains a sound investment for developers.
Look at the Gamecube or any game console. Developers make software for the Gamecube, which has sold less than 11 million units since it's introduction...and it only costs $99. Imagine that.
http://www.corante.com/apple/archives/005766.php
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Don't be foolish. If Apple sells about 4.5 million Macs a year, added on to a user base of about 30 million, the platform remains a sound investment for developers.
I really doubt the installed user base is 30 million units, since Apple is selling less than 4 million units/year. If im not mistaking, Apple sold 5 million units in the top unit selling year 1995. After that, only a couple of years have resulted in more than 4 million units sold, and some years Apple sold less than 3 million units(!). Also, the older hardware, the less likely you are to buy new software. Its pretty realistic that the installed user base is smaller now than in the mid 90is.
Originally posted by blabla
I really doubt the installed user base is 30 million units, since Apple is selling less than 4 million units/year. If im not mistaking, Apple sold 5 million units in the top unit selling year 1995. After that, only a couple of years have resulted in more than 4 million units sold, and some years Apple sold less than 3 million units(!). Also, the older hardware, the less likely you are to buy new software. Its pretty realistic that the installed user base is smaller now than in the mid 90is.
Apple's installed user base, including older systems is about 30 million people. OS X has about 13 million users and counting, the others have yet to upgrade. But, you know what they say, "once you go Mac, you dont go back."
Steve Jobs quotes numbers in the San Francisco Keynote from January of this year.
OS X is doing better then Nintendo. Food for thought.
Also, the Nintendo market is a lot more focused than the Mac market. Nintendo users buy games. Many Mac users don't buy anything.
"Once you go Mac you don't go back"-- what a joke. I would like to compare the size of the former Mac population to the current Mac population.
Apple is not in any danger of losing key support right now.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Apple's installed user base, including older systems is about 30 million people. OS X has about 13 million users and counting, the others have yet to upgrade. But, you know what they say, "once you go Mac, you dont go back."
Steve Jobs quotes numbers in the San Francisco Keynote from January of this year.
OS X is doing better then Nintendo. Food for thought.
And let's face it. Macs have slower replacing cycles. People keep their macs for longer than they keep their PCs. I've seen it with myself and with other mac users. I've even seen teachers at my university who don't get rid of their old macs even after they've gotten newer PCs. People just don't throw them away. They're special. And they're also more expensive, that's why you don't get a new mac that easily too. (They have lower TCO, in my opinion anyway, but that's another story.)
I don't think OS X is doing better than nintendo. The installed user base of the gameboy alone is should be larger than 13 million. They're selling since 1989.
And if you want to count total Mac units in history versus total gameboy units, it wouldnt be far from close.
Than the Gamecube platform.
I think that US sales of the GC are around 10 million. The subtle difference is that you can only play games on a GC, so for a developer their potential market is 10 million users. On OS X there are many different uses. Any given piece of software will only sell to a limit set of OS X users.
And if you want to count total Mac units in history versus total gameboy units, it wouldnt be far from close.
170 million gameboys, how many Macs? not that many. Absolutly highest estimate would be 4 million a year, for 20 years, 80 million. But it is a rare quarter that Apple topped 1 million units.
Originally posted by mmmpie
I think that US sales of the GC are around 10 million. The subtle difference is that you can only play games on a GC, so for a developer their potential market is 10 million users. On OS X there are many different uses. Any given piece of software will only sell to a limit set of OS X users.
170 million gameboys, how many Macs? not that many. Absolutly highest estimate would be 4 million a year, for 20 years, 80 million. But it is a rare quarter that Apple topped 1 million units.
My point was that more people bought a Mac than have bought a GC. A Mac at the minimum cost is 800 dollars, a GC is 100 dollars.
Again, even though the Gameboy has outsold the Mac, look at the unit price of each.