The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.
The keynote speech indicated essentially that AI would be releasing their
replacements for the G4 based consumer products first in 2006
and then move on to professional solutions in 2007.
I'm just going on what I heard and "assume" the priority will be placed on
deployment of faster laptops prior to the major overhaul of their towers.
I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps. I would figure that Apple would bump the Powerbook and the iBook and then begin to transition. It would be easy to see that the value of a PPC Mac is in doubt at least enough to affect sales. My guess is that Apple will get into the hardware ASAP, that is what rosette is for, it is only that Intel is not ready with the chips and Apple wants a large time window. Sometime in Q1 is when Yohna is set to appear, later Q2? the desktop version of that chip is set to appear. Watch for Apple to Mac these up. My guess was that the wait was for the hardware, the apps will have 8 to 9 months to get ready. I think that Steve was going off of the last transition when we all waited forever for Quark.
I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps.
It seemed that way, but he says
"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."
They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.
They also won't get anywhere near the volume discounts that Dell can pull off.
You can gaurantee that Apple havecut a good deal with Intel,
"When Intel really wants to promote something--as it did with its Centrino mobile processor platform - it can increase the ratio it pays to manufacturers. By some estimates, Intel paid out $3 or $4 on Centrino-related advertising for every dollar that manufacturers spent. Intel had said it was prepared to spend $300 million to promote the Centrino brand, and it turned out to be money well spent. Chips for mobile PCs now account for more than 30% of Intel's PC chip volume." -- The Register.
Imagine Apple being able to triple or quadruple its marketing budget. That'll really sell some machines.
Posted in another thread but seems relevant here too.
Is there any chance that Apple have said to Intel, we'll take your latest and greatest stuff, advertise the hell out of it for you, showcase your new technology on the best platform, which we can completely control, AS LONG AS we can have it first, exculsively, for say 3-4 months. That would help keep Apple's Intel products ahead of the other x86 rabble, whom Apple cant really compete with on price anyway.
"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."
They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.
Well from watching the demonstration I would think that Apple has the OS on Intel that is a given they have had it running for years now. He demo'ed some of the apps, and they worked. Mathmatica is not a small app so if they could port that in 2 hours then the rest is easy stuff. I don't know how the compilier handles VMX but some of that could be auto mapped to MMX. My guess is that Apple is ready all they need are apps, and the hardware. Apple will be ready by mid 2006 with all of their apps or before, my guess is that they will need the chips to test against.
HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
Where do you people imagine/exaggerate these supposed volume prices on componentry?
I assure you that builders like Dell, Apple, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc etc... are all in the same league when it comes to volume pricing. Dell has been known to make special requests for high volume, low spec parts for the bottom rung machines, but basically ALL the first tier manufacturers can get virtually the same prices, what one manufacturer can do relative to another will never be more than $50-100 difference in components.
Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.
Put those components in lovingly crafted lucite/plastic/aluminium, spec slimmer power supplies and quieter fans, and a few extra "assembly" steps to ensure the look and feel, and then the machine will cost more to build. But the components didn't cost you more than what the other guy's did. This was even true in the days of PPC, and is absolutely above question now that a common architecture has arrived.
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
I totally agree. If we see any price difference, it will be so minor to not be noticeable. I highly doubt, however, that we will see any price differences. I will be surprised if there is any.
Once I opened up the case of my Power Mac a couple of weeks ago after getting it last month, I realized very quickly what I spent my money on.
The entire package, hardware, OS experience, etc., is well worth the price.
This company Merlin says they already have their project management software ready. And I think they probably did it while at WWDC. READ THIS
Actually, the company is ProjectWizards and the project is called Merlin. It is good to hear that a lot of companies are taking this in stride and are not having such a big deal with it. I was surprised to hear of the response from the developers, but then again, after hearing of the help they are getting from Apple with universal binaries in Xcode 2.1 and other stuff, it really is not a major issue.
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
Actually thats more what I meant, I suppose I should have been clearer Apple dont wish to get into the lowest common denominator market, that much is clear. I was talking about how Apple might be able to continue to justify their higher prices, even when they have the same hardware as other PC makers, by getting it to market first with Intels co-operation. No need to get so uptight
HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.
Could you provide some evidence here. I know that Apple designes their own MBs and designed the Apple chip. On the PC side they will not need to do this, dosen't mean that they won't though. Also I thought that they were working with IBM on CPU and bridge chip design. With Intel that is not needed, I think that Intel would like the suggestions, but they really have got this down. These are costs that Apple was shouldering and I think that the slowly improving revenue from software and services helped the margins. Not saying that Apple will become the low cost provider, just that the margins could improve or the prices drop some. These are a few items that Apple may not choose to pay for themselves, and thus realize the savings.
The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.
But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).
« The PowerPC Mac customers are 100% of the Mac installed base now and for the next year or so, and it would be foolish to upset those users. This is in line of not obsoleting products or raising/changing system requirements for them after they have shipped, a policy we have very steadily followed »
The already have WoW working on Intel machine in 5-6 hours
« I ran WoW(PowerPC) on the pre-release dev kit machine today, under the Rosetta dynamic translator, and while very glad to see that it loaded up and ran with very minor rendering glitches here and there, the speed is not yet satisfactory. So, of all our titles we will give WoW the highest priority in going native on x86. This is still an exploratory effort and it is too early to commit to any kind of date or specific plans.
I can say we got the whole game compiled on x86/OSX and had its "first launch" this afternoon - it ran into a bug pretty early on, but now it's a debugging effort and beyond the "get it to compile and link" effort. »
Comments
Originally posted by MacCrazy
why buy a Mac to run Windows?
Windows users.
The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.
Originally posted by Brendon
Where did you hear that it would take two years to deploy Mac OS X for their pro configurations??
The keynote speech indicated essentially that AI would be releasing their
replacements for the G4 based consumer products first in 2006
and then move on to professional solutions in 2007.
I'm just going on what I heard and "assume" the priority will be placed on
deployment of faster laptops prior to the major overhaul of their towers.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
The keynote speech indicated essentially that AI would be releasing their
replacements for the G4 based consumer products first in 2006
and then move on to professional solutions in 2007.
I'm just going on what I heard and "assume" the priority will be placed on
deployment of faster laptops prior to the major overhaul of their towers.
I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps. I would figure that Apple would bump the Powerbook and the iBook and then begin to transition. It would be easy to see that the value of a PPC Mac is in doubt at least enough to affect sales. My guess is that Apple will get into the hardware ASAP, that is what rosette is for, it is only that Intel is not ready with the chips and Apple wants a large time window. Sometime in Q1 is when Yohna is set to appear, later Q2? the desktop version of that chip is set to appear. Watch for Apple to Mac these up. My guess was that the wait was for the hardware, the apps will have 8 to 9 months to get ready. I think that Steve was going off of the last transition when we all waited forever for Quark.
Originally posted by Brendon
I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps.
It seemed that way, but he says
"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."
They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
They also won't get anywhere near the volume discounts that Dell can pull off.
You can gaurantee that Apple havecut a good deal with Intel,
"When Intel really wants to promote something--as it did with its Centrino mobile processor platform - it can increase the ratio it pays to manufacturers. By some estimates, Intel paid out $3 or $4 on Centrino-related advertising for every dollar that manufacturers spent. Intel had said it was prepared to spend $300 million to promote the Centrino brand, and it turned out to be money well spent. Chips for mobile PCs now account for more than 30% of Intel's PC chip volume." -- The Register.
Imagine Apple being able to triple or quadruple its marketing budget. That'll really sell some machines.
AUTOCAD
AUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADA UTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAU TOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUT OCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTO CADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOC ADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCA DAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCAD
If I could run AUTOCAD at work on a Mac, I could have a Mac at work! I would settle for a fast VPC with correct acting mouse cursor.
Posted in another thread but seems relevant here too.
Is there any chance that Apple have said to Intel, we'll take your latest and greatest stuff, advertise the hell out of it for you, showcase your new technology on the best platform, which we can completely control, AS LONG AS we can have it first, exculsively, for say 3-4 months. That would help keep Apple's Intel products ahead of the other x86 rabble, whom Apple cant really compete with on price anyway.
What do you think?
Originally posted by the cool gut
It seemed that way, but he says
"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."
They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.
Well from watching the demonstration I would think that Apple has the OS on Intel that is a given they have had it running for years now. He demo'ed some of the apps, and they worked. Mathmatica is not a small app so if they could port that in 2 hours then the rest is easy stuff. I don't know how the compilier handles VMX but some of that could be auto mapped to MMX. My guess is that Apple is ready all they need are apps, and the hardware. Apple will be ready by mid 2006 with all of their apps or before, my guess is that they will need the chips to test against.
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
Where do you people imagine/exaggerate these supposed volume prices on componentry?
I assure you that builders like Dell, Apple, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc etc... are all in the same league when it comes to volume pricing. Dell has been known to make special requests for high volume, low spec parts for the bottom rung machines, but basically ALL the first tier manufacturers can get virtually the same prices, what one manufacturer can do relative to another will never be more than $50-100 difference in components.
Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.
Put those components in lovingly crafted lucite/plastic/aluminium, spec slimmer power supplies and quieter fans, and a few extra "assembly" steps to ensure the look and feel, and then the machine will cost more to build. But the components didn't cost you more than what the other guy's did. This was even true in the days of PPC, and is absolutely above question now that a common architecture has arrived.
Originally posted by Matsu
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
I totally agree. If we see any price difference, it will be so minor to not be noticeable. I highly doubt, however, that we will see any price differences. I will be surprised if there is any.
Once I opened up the case of my Power Mac a couple of weeks ago after getting it last month, I realized very quickly what I spent my money on.
The entire package, hardware, OS experience, etc., is well worth the price.
Originally posted by onlooker
This company Merlin says they already have their project management software ready. And I think they probably did it while at WWDC. READ THIS
Actually, the company is ProjectWizards and the project is called Merlin. It is good to hear that a lot of companies are taking this in stride and are not having such a big deal with it. I was surprised to hear of the response from the developers, but then again, after hearing of the help they are getting from Apple with universal binaries in Xcode 2.1 and other stuff, it really is not a major issue.
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
Actually thats more what I meant, I suppose I should have been clearer
Originally posted by onlooker
nice quote numb nuts,
whatever
Is that better?
Some people here need a chill pill thats for sure
Originally posted by Matsu
HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?
Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.
Could you provide some evidence here. I know that Apple designes their own MBs and designed the Apple chip. On the PC side they will not need to do this, dosen't mean that they won't though. Also I thought that they were working with IBM on CPU and bridge chip design. With Intel that is not needed, I think that Intel would like the suggestions, but they really have got this down. These are costs that Apple was shouldering and I think that the slowly improving revenue from software and services helped the margins. Not saying that Apple will become the low cost provider, just that the margins could improve or the prices drop some. These are a few items that Apple may not choose to pay for themselves, and thus realize the savings.
Originally posted by iPeon
Windows users.
The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.
But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).
« The PowerPC Mac customers are 100% of the Mac installed base now and for the next year or so, and it would be foolish to upset those users. This is in line of not obsoleting products or raising/changing system requirements for them after they have shipped, a policy we have very steadily followed »
The already have WoW working on Intel machine in 5-6 hours
« I ran WoW(PowerPC) on the pre-release dev kit machine today, under the Rosetta dynamic translator, and while very glad to see that it loaded up and ran with very minor rendering glitches here and there, the speed is not yet satisfactory. So, of all our titles we will give WoW the highest priority in going native on x86. This is still an exploratory effort and it is too early to commit to any kind of date or specific plans.
I can say we got the whole game compiled on x86/OSX and had its "first launch" this afternoon - it ran into a bug pretty early on, but now it's a debugging effort and beyond the "get it to compile and link" effort. »
Source http://www.macgamezone.com/reaction/?id=3024&type=news