They all do this. No company is going to use more than is necessary for their design.
I can think of plenty of examples when they do use more than is necessary.
MightyMouse - two buttons and a scroll wheel would have done but no, Apple used touch sensitive areas and a wacky trackball, that incidentally gets gummed up far too easily and has no way of being cleaned. I'm on my third.
iMac sleep lights. In Rev A it's just a light that gets dimmer at night based on the clock and some firmware. In Rev B there's an ambient light sensor!
Apple really thinks about the small details on their designs and if it needs extra parts to fulfil, they add them where others would cut the design to get the reduced parts count or use something off the shelf.
I can't really say. In (traditional) Apple's philosophy, the user does not need to know how a computer works. It is friendly and there is (should be) no need to open it and fiddle with components to make it work. This may be in the root of the image Mac users have in PC land.
Since the consumer/pro distinction started in Apple, we saw no consumer level desktop that offered officially user accessibility to a reasonable extend. The Power mac though remained as it was, fully expandable and all.
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
Or are you saying that what PC people say is true, that Mac people are too ignorant of their machines and so shouldn't be allowed to open them?
Or, perhaps more simply, Apple discovered that the user-serviceable part that was removed in the latest revision (HD) wasn't really such an important thing for the iMac customer.
I can think of plenty of examples when they do use more than is necessary.
MightyMouse - two buttons and a scroll wheel would have done but no, Apple used touch sensitive areas and a wacky trackball, that incidentally gets gummed up far too easily and has no way of being cleaned. I'm on my third.
iMac sleep lights. In Rev A it's just a light that gets dimmer at night based on the clock and some firmware. In Rev B there's an ambient light sensor!
Apple really thinks about the small details on their designs and if it needs extra parts to fulfil, they add them where others would cut the design to get the reduced parts count or use something off the shelf.
I don't think we were talking about features. We were talking about designing a board with 20 chips when it only needed 16.
The wacky trackball is a design flaw. Something that I WAS talking about. Apple does make them!
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
I think there is...perhaps most people that buy iMacs (the example we're talking about) don't have much need at all to upgrade. What could you possibly upgrade? Memory? That's available. HD? Possibly. But with iMac it would have to be a replacement not addition which instantly complicates matters for the user.
The truth of the matter is that as computers have evolved...more and more key features have been integrated that used to require expansion slots (sound card, video card, storage, network card, mouse card!, additional ports).
Fact is...most of the expansion/upgrade that consumers (and probably most pros for that matter) need to do these days can be handled very easily through FireWire and/or USB.
[B]I can't really say. In (traditional) Apple's philosophy, the user does not need to know how a computer works. It is friendly and there is (should be) no need to open it and fiddle with components to make it work. This may be in the root of the image Mac users have in PC land.
Since the consumer/pro distinction started in Apple, we saw no consumer level desktop that offered officially user accessibility to a reasonable extend. The Power mac though remained as it was, fully expandable and all.
Not true. Performers were consumer machines, and for years thay opened up just like the pro machines.
It's JOBS who thinks the consumer is an idiot. The original Mac was his design. When he left we got the 6 and 8 slot machines.
When he came back we got the iMacs.
We had 6 slot pro machines before him, and 3 and 4 slot machines after. Same thing with external bays. My 9500 had three, my 9600 had four!
Four HD's in my 9500, and 6 in my 9600.
Quote:
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
It's so strange that every so often then that Jobs lets up on both the pro and consumer machines, and gives us some more of what we want. But then, he takes it away again. It's almost as though he can't stant it.
I think there is...perhaps most people that buy iMacs (the example we're talking about) don't have much need at all to upgrade. What could you possibly upgrade? Memory? That's available. HD? Possibly. But with iMac it would have to be a replacement not addition which instantly complicates matters for the user.
The truth of the matter is that as computers have evolved...more and more key features have been integrated that used to require expansion slots (sound card, video card, storage, network card, mouse card!, additional ports).
Fact is...most of the expansion/upgrade that consumers (and probably most pros for that matter) need to do these days can be handled very easily through FireWire and/or USB.
But then we're back to the problem of not having enough USB 2 ports on any of Apple's machines. On my PM's I can add boards, and I have, for that and Firewire as well. But I don't like to use a slot for that.
Why can't a $3,300 PM have the same 4 or 5 USB2 ports that a $500 PC does?
I think you have this wrong. I think they view their consumer line more like "appliances" that are quite unlikely to need/want upgrades. It is a valid philosophy, though one that you obviously disagree with.
As far as the USB question in the other post, I agree...I'd like a couple more. But I can also get a USB hub if I really need it (which, so far I don't).
If you want expandability, buy the Power product line.
The consumer level machines are designed exactly to create a tipping point, moving people who want better video, etc, to the Power line of computers.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it is a conscious decision on Apple's part. They do it on purpose and are not likely to change it unless there is a financial reason.
I think you have this wrong. I think they view their consumer line more like "appliances" that are quite unlikely to need/want upgrades. It is a valid philosophy, though one that you obviously disagree with.
As far as the USB question in the other post, I agree...I'd like a couple more. But I can also get a USB hub if I really need it (which, so far I don't).
I knew the hub question would come up.
A hub is a poor substitute for an actual port. Many items won't work at all through a hub, so that excludes its use for many.
The bandwidth from a hub is compromised because of its very serial narure, and the fact that it is packet based, somewhat like Ethernet. This causes wait states. Anything that depends upon an even flow of data can be compromised going through a hub.
When a USB 1.1 device is connected to the same hub as anUSB 2 device, the USB 2 device is slowed down (if both are on at the same time).
If you want expandability, buy the Power product line.
The consumer level machines are designed exactly to create a tipping point, moving people who want better video, etc, to the Power line of computers.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it is a conscious decision on Apple's part. They do it on purpose and are not likely to change it unless there is a financial reason.
Not every knowledgable person wants to, or can, afford to buy a PowerMac. That doesn't mean that thety don't want an expandable, or at least a repairable, machine.
1) USB hubs. Buy a quality hub, not a Belkin hub. Quality hubs can provide the power you need and some even let you use them so that USB 2 devices can run full speed. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users will never use all the ports they have.
2) melgross: If one cannot afford a PowerMac, one cannot afford it. Apple is being perfectly clear here. Want the extra features? Pay for them. Apple is no more responsible for a user's budget constraints. Repairability is in there, but not like some would like it. Some might question the quality of knowledge (mine, yours, or Jobs') used to determine that the pro line is not worth the dollars or space or whatever makes one not like it. That's okay. It is a personal decision, and falls beyond mine and yours ability to evaluate for more than ourselves.
Apple is in the business of selling product. Consumer products, especially, have obsolescence built-in. Consumers can defeat that by buying higher-quality products.
*(Oh, and by obsolescence, I don't necessarily mean part failure, I mean features and abilities that will be insufficient at some future date -- such as combo drives instead of DVD-Rs (That is an example of the customer building in the obsolescence by choosing the cheaper option)).
1) USB hubs. Buy a quality hub, not a Belkin hub. Quality hubs can provide the power you need and some even let you use them so that USB 2 devices can run full speed. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users will never use all the ports they have.
2) melgross: If one cannot afford a PowerMac, one cannot afford it. Apple is being perfectly clear here. Want the extra features? Pay for them. Apple is no more responsible for a user's budget constraints. Repairability is in there, but not like some would like it. Some might question the quality of knowledge (mine, yours, or Jobs') used to determine that the pro line is not worth the dollars or space or whatever makes one not like it. That's okay. It is a personal decision, and falls beyond mine and yours ability to evaluate for more than ourselves.
Apple is in the business of selling product. Consumer products, especially, have obsolescence built-in. Consumers can defeat that by buying higher-quality products.
*(Oh, and by obsolescence, I don't necessarily mean part failure, I mean features and abilities that will be insufficient at some future date -- such as combo drives instead of DVD-Rs (That is an example of the customer building in the obsolescence by choosing the cheaper option)).
Naturally, it's Apple's choice.
But is that choice a good one?
Apple wants to increase marketshare. That's not easy for them
There two problems. One, Apple has total control over. The other, only partial control.
They can make and price machines anyway they want. They could come out with a $750 machine with 3 slots, and standard PC goodies. That would sell a lot of machines. So. They don't want to.
The second is the OS. Changing OS's isn't something that most take lightly. Apple can make it easier, but not painless.
The most sucessful companies give their customers what they want, and more. Part of Apple's lack of sucess in computer marketshare is that they tend to tell us what we should want.
Sometimes thay are right. But marketshare tells us that often they are wrong.
I don't think Apple could market a $750 computer with 3 slots TODAY. Not with the PPC. Note I said "Market." Producing a machine at price is possible, but the costs of marketing might be unacceptable for AAPL.
Maybe, once they are using Intel chips, they can do this. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.
I don't think Apple could market a $750 computer with 3 slots TODAY. Not with the PPC. Note I said "Market." Producing a machine at price is possible, but the costs of marketing might be unacceptable for AAPL.
Maybe, once they are using Intel chips, they can do this. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.
Have a great night.
This is an interesting point. It's said that Intel's chips will cost more than the ones from IBM and Freescale. I can only suspect that if Apple will no longer have to design their own Northbridge chips and such, as well as not having to do so for some of their mobo's, their prices will be less in total than they are now.
They could have easily built a mini G5 tower with one chip, or now one dual core chip for $999. I did my own analysis of that based on my design and manufacturing experience gained from my work at my own company.
If they went to a less expensive case, they could have squeeked it for $750.
The number of permutations that would give Apple a $999 G5 tower are almost limitless. It is not and never has been a question of could they build it. It is a question of whether they can have that unit as a part of their overall offerings and maximize their revenue/profits.
Could Apple sell this $999 G5? Yes. How would it's design, manufacture and distribution affect the production of Mac minis, iMac G5s and Full Tower G5s? Would the addition of the $999 G5 microtower make minis and iMac G5s economically infeasible due to production line costs, design costs, etc?
If Apple were selling 20 million computers a year, instead of 1-2 million, the answers to those questions might be different. But Apple does not have the economies of scale that it WILL have when it moves to the Intel platform. Apple will inherit those economies for some of their internals.
All of this allegedly-saved money will have almost nothing to do with the feature set and pricing of the Mactels they manufacture - that will be determined by the bean counters.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
Perhaps Apple agrees.
That would be sad, wouldn't it?
http://www.macintouch.com/
Originally posted by melgross
They all do this. No company is going to use more than is necessary for their design.
I can think of plenty of examples when they do use more than is necessary.
MightyMouse - two buttons and a scroll wheel would have done but no, Apple used touch sensitive areas and a wacky trackball, that incidentally gets gummed up far too easily and has no way of being cleaned. I'm on my third.
iMac sleep lights. In Rev A it's just a light that gets dimmer at night based on the clock and some firmware. In Rev B there's an ambient light sensor!
Apple really thinks about the small details on their designs and if it needs extra parts to fulfil, they add them where others would cut the design to get the reduced parts count or use something off the shelf.
Originally posted by melgross
That would be sad, wouldn't it?
I can't really say. In (traditional) Apple's philosophy, the user does not need to know how a computer works. It is friendly and there is (should be) no need to open it and fiddle with components to make it work. This may be in the root of the image Mac users have in PC land.
Since the consumer/pro distinction started in Apple, we saw no consumer level desktop that offered officially user accessibility to a reasonable extend. The Power mac though remained as it was, fully expandable and all.
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
Originally posted by melgross
Or are you saying that what PC people say is true, that Mac people are too ignorant of their machines and so shouldn't be allowed to open them?
Or, perhaps more simply, Apple discovered that the user-serviceable part that was removed in the latest revision (HD) wasn't really such an important thing for the iMac customer.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I can think of plenty of examples when they do use more than is necessary.
MightyMouse - two buttons and a scroll wheel would have done but no, Apple used touch sensitive areas and a wacky trackball, that incidentally gets gummed up far too easily and has no way of being cleaned. I'm on my third.
iMac sleep lights. In Rev A it's just a light that gets dimmer at night based on the clock and some firmware. In Rev B there's an ambient light sensor!
Apple really thinks about the small details on their designs and if it needs extra parts to fulfil, they add them where others would cut the design to get the reduced parts count or use something off the shelf.
I don't think we were talking about features. We were talking about designing a board with 20 chips when it only needed 16.
The wacky trackball is a design flaw. Something that I WAS talking about. Apple does make them!
Originally posted by PB
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
I think there is...perhaps most people that buy iMacs (the example we're talking about) don't have much need at all to upgrade. What could you possibly upgrade? Memory? That's available. HD? Possibly. But with iMac it would have to be a replacement not addition which instantly complicates matters for the user.
The truth of the matter is that as computers have evolved...more and more key features have been integrated that used to require expansion slots (sound card, video card, storage, network card, mouse card!, additional ports).
Fact is...most of the expansion/upgrade that consumers (and probably most pros for that matter) need to do these days can be handled very easily through FireWire and/or USB.
Originally posted by PB
[B]I can't really say. In (traditional) Apple's philosophy, the user does not need to know how a computer works. It is friendly and there is (should be) no need to open it and fiddle with components to make it work. This may be in the root of the image Mac users have in PC land.
Since the consumer/pro distinction started in Apple, we saw no consumer level desktop that offered officially user accessibility to a reasonable extend. The Power mac though remained as it was, fully expandable and all.
Not true. Performers were consumer machines, and for years thay opened up just like the pro machines.
It's JOBS who thinks the consumer is an idiot. The original Mac was his design. When he left we got the 6 and 8 slot machines.
When he came back we got the iMacs.
We had 6 slot pro machines before him, and 3 and 4 slot machines after. Same thing with external bays. My 9500 had three, my 9600 had four!
Four HD's in my 9500, and 6 in my 9600.
It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.
However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.
It's so strange that every so often then that Jobs lets up on both the pro and consumer machines, and gives us some more of what we want. But then, he takes it away again. It's almost as though he can't stant it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think there is...perhaps most people that buy iMacs (the example we're talking about) don't have much need at all to upgrade. What could you possibly upgrade? Memory? That's available. HD? Possibly. But with iMac it would have to be a replacement not addition which instantly complicates matters for the user.
The truth of the matter is that as computers have evolved...more and more key features have been integrated that used to require expansion slots (sound card, video card, storage, network card, mouse card!, additional ports).
Fact is...most of the expansion/upgrade that consumers (and probably most pros for that matter) need to do these days can be handled very easily through FireWire and/or USB.
But then we're back to the problem of not having enough USB 2 ports on any of Apple's machines. On my PM's I can add boards, and I have, for that and Firewire as well. But I don't like to use a slot for that.
Why can't a $3,300 PM have the same 4 or 5 USB2 ports that a $500 PC does?
Originally posted by melgross
It's JOBS who thinks the consumer is an idiot.
I think you have this wrong. I think they view their consumer line more like "appliances" that are quite unlikely to need/want upgrades. It is a valid philosophy, though one that you obviously disagree with.
As far as the USB question in the other post, I agree...I'd like a couple more. But I can also get a USB hub if I really need it (which, so far I don't).
Originally posted by melgross
Not true. Performers were consumer machines, and for years thay opened up just like the pro machines.
You mean Performas... yes, I forgot about them.
The consumer level machines are designed exactly to create a tipping point, moving people who want better video, etc, to the Power line of computers.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it is a conscious decision on Apple's part. They do it on purpose and are not likely to change it unless there is a financial reason.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think you have this wrong. I think they view their consumer line more like "appliances" that are quite unlikely to need/want upgrades. It is a valid philosophy, though one that you obviously disagree with.
As far as the USB question in the other post, I agree...I'd like a couple more. But I can also get a USB hub if I really need it (which, so far I don't).
I knew the hub question would come up.
A hub is a poor substitute for an actual port. Many items won't work at all through a hub, so that excludes its use for many.
The bandwidth from a hub is compromised because of its very serial narure, and the fact that it is packet based, somewhat like Ethernet. This causes wait states. Anything that depends upon an even flow of data can be compromised going through a hub.
When a USB 1.1 device is connected to the same hub as anUSB 2 device, the USB 2 device is slowed down (if both are on at the same time).
Originally posted by PB
You mean Performas... yes, I forgot about them.
A Freudian slip.
Originally posted by jccbin
If you want expandability, buy the Power product line.
The consumer level machines are designed exactly to create a tipping point, moving people who want better video, etc, to the Power line of computers.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it is a conscious decision on Apple's part. They do it on purpose and are not likely to change it unless there is a financial reason.
Not every knowledgable person wants to, or can, afford to buy a PowerMac. That doesn't mean that thety don't want an expandable, or at least a repairable, machine.
1) USB hubs. Buy a quality hub, not a Belkin hub. Quality hubs can provide the power you need and some even let you use them so that USB 2 devices can run full speed. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users will never use all the ports they have.
2) melgross: If one cannot afford a PowerMac, one cannot afford it. Apple is being perfectly clear here. Want the extra features? Pay for them. Apple is no more responsible for a user's budget constraints. Repairability is in there, but not like some would like it. Some might question the quality of knowledge (mine, yours, or Jobs') used to determine that the pro line is not worth the dollars or space or whatever makes one not like it. That's okay. It is a personal decision, and falls beyond mine and yours ability to evaluate for more than ourselves.
Apple is in the business of selling product. Consumer products, especially, have obsolescence built-in. Consumers can defeat that by buying higher-quality products.
*(Oh, and by obsolescence, I don't necessarily mean part failure, I mean features and abilities that will be insufficient at some future date -- such as combo drives instead of DVD-Rs (That is an example of the customer building in the obsolescence by choosing the cheaper option)).
Originally posted by jccbin
Two things:
1) USB hubs. Buy a quality hub, not a Belkin hub. Quality hubs can provide the power you need and some even let you use them so that USB 2 devices can run full speed. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users will never use all the ports they have.
2) melgross: If one cannot afford a PowerMac, one cannot afford it. Apple is being perfectly clear here. Want the extra features? Pay for them. Apple is no more responsible for a user's budget constraints. Repairability is in there, but not like some would like it. Some might question the quality of knowledge (mine, yours, or Jobs') used to determine that the pro line is not worth the dollars or space or whatever makes one not like it. That's okay. It is a personal decision, and falls beyond mine and yours ability to evaluate for more than ourselves.
Apple is in the business of selling product. Consumer products, especially, have obsolescence built-in. Consumers can defeat that by buying higher-quality products.
*(Oh, and by obsolescence, I don't necessarily mean part failure, I mean features and abilities that will be insufficient at some future date -- such as combo drives instead of DVD-Rs (That is an example of the customer building in the obsolescence by choosing the cheaper option)).
Naturally, it's Apple's choice.
But is that choice a good one?
Apple wants to increase marketshare. That's not easy for them
There two problems. One, Apple has total control over. The other, only partial control.
They can make and price machines anyway they want. They could come out with a $750 machine with 3 slots, and standard PC goodies. That would sell a lot of machines. So. They don't want to.
The second is the OS. Changing OS's isn't something that most take lightly. Apple can make it easier, but not painless.
The most sucessful companies give their customers what they want, and more. Part of Apple's lack of sucess in computer marketshare is that they tend to tell us what we should want.
Sometimes thay are right. But marketshare tells us that often they are wrong.
Maybe, once they are using Intel chips, they can do this. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.
Have a great night.
Originally posted by jccbin
I don't think Apple could market a $750 computer with 3 slots TODAY. Not with the PPC. Note I said "Market." Producing a machine at price is possible, but the costs of marketing might be unacceptable for AAPL.
Maybe, once they are using Intel chips, they can do this. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.
Have a great night.
This is an interesting point. It's said that Intel's chips will cost more than the ones from IBM and Freescale. I can only suspect that if Apple will no longer have to design their own Northbridge chips and such, as well as not having to do so for some of their mobo's, their prices will be less in total than they are now.
They could have easily built a mini G5 tower with one chip, or now one dual core chip for $999. I did my own analysis of that based on my design and manufacturing experience gained from my work at my own company.
If they went to a less expensive case, they could have squeeked it for $750.
The number of permutations that would give Apple a $999 G5 tower are almost limitless. It is not and never has been a question of could they build it. It is a question of whether they can have that unit as a part of their overall offerings and maximize their revenue/profits.
Could Apple sell this $999 G5? Yes. How would it's design, manufacture and distribution affect the production of Mac minis, iMac G5s and Full Tower G5s? Would the addition of the $999 G5 microtower make minis and iMac G5s economically infeasible due to production line costs, design costs, etc?
If Apple were selling 20 million computers a year, instead of 1-2 million, the answers to those questions might be different. But Apple does not have the economies of scale that it WILL have when it moves to the Intel platform. Apple will inherit those economies for some of their internals.
All of this allegedly-saved money will have almost nothing to do with the feature set and pricing of the Mactels they manufacture - that will be determined by the bean counters.