Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Price - they might not be able to sell a $3000 laptop
Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.
Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?
For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?
Quote:
Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.
So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that. It's not like Apple isn't telling you the clock speed of the CPU. Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.
Quote:
Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.
True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed? When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?
Quote:
What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice?
I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.
Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?
For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?
It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".
Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that.
I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed?
agreed.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?
I hope so.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.
I agree with you on some points. A well-run company needs to have a well-defined plan and definitely shouldn't "run willy nilly after this model or that".
If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want? The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.
Apple's computers are the only ones that you can run OS X on. No, I'm not about to say that this should change. It absolutely should not. But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options. Apple have around 4% market share, we know that what they offer satisfies that 4%. If Apple want any of the 96% to become their customers, they have to start offering them machines that they want to buy.
It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".
You misread my post. Bottom line is that I think I'll take Apple's track record for predicting and delivering the goods that consumers want over what you want.
Quote:
Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.
Oh, well that's entirely different. My POST is befitting an apologist. I, myself, am not. Alrighty then.
Quote:
I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.
Other than the fact that a 17" chassis provides over 10% more component and cooling room by virtue of the fact that it's larger. And, whether the physical layout of the board can withstand the additional heat. And whether the proximity of the components are affected by different airflow considerations, heat build up, RFI interference, and and and and. You're making a lot of assumptions that aren't grounded in anything other than a desire to have bragging rights.
Quote:
If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want?
Yes, giving customers what they want is important. Another important consideration is giving your other stakeholders what they want. Success in business is a constant balancing act between the two.
Quote:
The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.
And yet, all the while that their BTO options have decreased their sales have increased. This is important to Apple's other stakeholders...
Quote:
But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options.
I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X that Apple has chosen to focus on other areas that represent very real adoption hurdles.
The iMac in some ways reminds me of the first Macintosh. That first Mac was meant to be a closed unit. Something that was remarkable for its time, and that did many things for the user, empowering him or her. The iLife applications and the Mac OS are what do that, like the early Macintosh. It was not meant to be upgraded. I am glad that Apple at least lets memory be upgraded on the present iMacs.
But, I like the later PowerMac idea, wherein you were able to replace HD, or motherboard, if need be, and memory, additional drives could be put in, all the kind of things that aegisdesign expressed earlier about the earlier G5 iMac.
I found my self being attracted to the new Mac Book. But I believe I am going to wait for the Book to come later in the year.
I don't plan to wait too long to get a Mac for office work, so the iMac is looking like a possibility.
eek, this is getting almost out of control. To reply or not to reply? I'll think I'll go for one more, then leave it.
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
a desire to have bragging rights.
?? Could you clarify? Are you saying that I want Apple to offer a faster processor so that I can having bragging rights?
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X
You're right, I don't think that only the introduction of allowing people to choose a 10% faster processor is going to get a significant number of people to switch. This argument started because I said beyond technical limitations due to the form factor, there wasn't much excuse for not offering the faster processor (it's pin compatible and the same size). The argument developed from there onto BTO in general, I was using the processor as a key example of Apple making decisions on behalf of their potential customers.
I think it is worth saying again that Apple are the only people who manufacture computers that can run OS X. If you are a current Windows user, you have A LOT of different computers to choose from. Now, there is obviously no way that Apple can offer a model to compete with every single PC model out there, but I think it's about time that Apple started to expand the options it offers its customers in an effort to obtain more switchers.
15 is the heart and soul of laptop sizes, for consumers and pros they gave us a future with the mac pro, now gives them some leaway for the next year. if it could run windows and you all showed me how, i'd buy right now. i'm excited about the price performance ratio. considering where we came from this is huge
So you believe Apple elected not to use a cpu that was 2.16 Ghz, in lieu of just having a 1.8 Ghz cpu?
It seems peculiar that if they were able to offer it, that Apple would not.
I do not know why this was. One would think that the thickness of the Mac notebook may have meant that heat was an issue.
There have been so many times when Apple went for the quickest cpu that they were able to offer. Why would this not happen now?
Well, some time we will find the reason.
Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz. The iMacs use the Typical version, which clocks up to 2Ghz. If that's the case, then Apple opted to use the more expensive variant that gets better battery life, and probably produces less heat. Those PC manufacturers offering 2Ghz Core Duo's in notebooks are using the version that isn't low-voltage, which I presume equals poorer battery life and a big fat heavy case. I presume no one will know if this is true or not until someone who can tell what chip is what gets their hands on a MacBook Pro.
Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz.
Only problem with that thinking is that Intel only released 2 low voltage versions.
The L2400 is 1.66Ghz and the L2300 at 1.5Ghz. So that'd mean Apple have an L2500 before anyone else or Intel have announced it.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the insides of the intel iMac see
Thank you for the link aegisdesign. It would be interesting to also see the 20" iMac insides. Being the same motherboard, it must not look much different, just the screen is wider/bigger, and then a little more room inside, I reckon.
Comments
Originally posted by godrifle
Do any run OS X and include iLife?
Yeah, I can just hear the comments if Apple had put a faster processor in that required a thicker case to accomodate greater heat dissipation.
"Why in the world would Apple make their laptops THICKER..."
Originally posted by Mr. H
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Price - they might not be able to sell a $3000 laptop
Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.
Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?
For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?
Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.
So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that. It's not like Apple isn't telling you the clock speed of the CPU. Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.
Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.
True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed? When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?
What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice?
I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.
Originally posted by godrifle
Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?
For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?
It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".
Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.
Originally posted by godrifle
So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that.
I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.
Originally posted by godrifle
True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed?
agreed.
Originally posted by godrifle
When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?
I hope so.
Originally posted by godrifle
I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.
Originally posted by godrifle
Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.
I agree with you on some points. A well-run company needs to have a well-defined plan and definitely shouldn't "run willy nilly after this model or that".
If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want? The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.
Apple's computers are the only ones that you can run OS X on. No, I'm not about to say that this should change. It absolutely should not. But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options. Apple have around 4% market share, we know that what they offer satisfies that 4%. If Apple want any of the 96% to become their customers, they have to start offering them machines that they want to buy.
Originally posted by Mr. H
It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".
You misread my post. Bottom line is that I think I'll take Apple's track record for predicting and delivering the goods that consumers want over what you want.
Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.
Oh, well that's entirely different. My POST is befitting an apologist. I, myself, am not. Alrighty then.
I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.
Other than the fact that a 17" chassis provides over 10% more component and cooling room by virtue of the fact that it's larger. And, whether the physical layout of the board can withstand the additional heat. And whether the proximity of the components are affected by different airflow considerations, heat build up, RFI interference, and and and and. You're making a lot of assumptions that aren't grounded in anything other than a desire to have bragging rights.
If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want?
Yes, giving customers what they want is important. Another important consideration is giving your other stakeholders what they want. Success in business is a constant balancing act between the two.
The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.
And yet, all the while that their BTO options have decreased their sales have increased. This is important to Apple's other stakeholders...
But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options.
I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X that Apple has chosen to focus on other areas that represent very real adoption hurdles.
But, I like the later PowerMac idea, wherein you were able to replace HD, or motherboard, if need be, and memory, additional drives could be put in, all the kind of things that aegisdesign expressed earlier about the earlier G5 iMac.
I found my self being attracted to the new Mac Book. But I believe I am going to wait for the Book to come later in the year.
I don't plan to wait too long to get a Mac for office work, so the iMac is looking like a possibility.
Originally posted by godrifle
a desire to have bragging rights.
?? Could you clarify? Are you saying that I want Apple to offer a faster processor so that I can having bragging rights?
Originally posted by godrifle
I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X
You're right, I don't think that only the introduction of allowing people to choose a 10% faster processor is going to get a significant number of people to switch. This argument started because I said beyond technical limitations due to the form factor, there wasn't much excuse for not offering the faster processor (it's pin compatible and the same size). The argument developed from there onto BTO in general, I was using the processor as a key example of Apple making decisions on behalf of their potential customers.
I think it is worth saying again that Apple are the only people who manufacture computers that can run OS X. If you are a current Windows user, you have A LOT of different computers to choose from. Now, there is obviously no way that Apple can offer a model to compete with every single PC model out there, but I think it's about time that Apple started to expand the options it offers its customers in an effort to obtain more switchers.
It seems peculiar that if they were able to offer it, that Apple would not.
I do not know why this was. One would think that the thickness of the Mac notebook may have meant that heat was an issue.
There have been so many times when Apple went for the quickest cpu that they were able to offer. Why would this not happen now?
Well, some time we will find the reason.
Originally posted by e1618978
Price - they might not be able to sell a $3000 laptop
I was looking around, it seems there are quite a few pricier laptop models available.
Originally posted by NordicMan
So you believe Apple elected not to use a cpu that was 2.16 Ghz, in lieu of just having a 1.8 Ghz cpu?
It seems peculiar that if they were able to offer it, that Apple would not.
I do not know why this was. One would think that the thickness of the Mac notebook may have meant that heat was an issue.
There have been so many times when Apple went for the quickest cpu that they were able to offer. Why would this not happen now?
Well, some time we will find the reason.
Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz. The iMacs use the Typical version, which clocks up to 2Ghz. If that's the case, then Apple opted to use the more expensive variant that gets better battery life, and probably produces less heat. Those PC manufacturers offering 2Ghz Core Duo's in notebooks are using the version that isn't low-voltage, which I presume equals poorer battery life and a big fat heavy case. I presume no one will know if this is true or not until someone who can tell what chip is what gets their hands on a MacBook Pro.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz.
Only problem with that thinking is that Intel only released 2 low voltage versions.
The L2400 is 1.66Ghz and the L2300 at 1.5Ghz. So that'd mean Apple have an L2500 before anyone else or Intel have announced it.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the insides of the intel iMac see
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawar...c_intel01.html
Nice closeup on the T2400 CPU in the 1.83Ghz model. The insides are a complete mess by comparison to the Rev A G5.