If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen. Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.
The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest.
See other thread for rebuttal but this is clearly wrong as can be seen in the myriad Xerox PARC screen shots from the 70s.
To people that are against the price of the black macbook (the ones that want black for all configs, or black to not cost anymore):
The black one cost more because apple obviously doesn't make as many as the white one, so it cost a little more to make. They don't make as many for 3 reasons:
1. It is the highest of 3 configs so why would as many black cases be built as white cases?
2. They don't want to make equal colours of everything to find half sitting in a warehouse. That's what happened with the gold ipod mini, it was a waste of money, time and space.
3. It becomes a status symbol. An Infiniti G35 body is not a body option for a Nissan Sentra.
I can live with that because it's better than having a warehouse full of unsold white or black machines because everyone opts for only model. That's what had happened to the white nanos at first until the craze for the black one calmed down, for something as big and as expensive as a notebook it makes no sense for a smaller volume company like apple.
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
lmao.. If you think this computer cannot play the sims u must be a dumbass. reading out of date system requirements for 2d games means absolutely nothing.. If this thing can get 80 fps out of quake 3, just like the intel mac mini, then it can obviously play any of the games you mentioned.. That doesn't mean it rocks for gaming, but this chip is WAY better than a radeon 9000 or 7500
That was when their market share was nearer 10% IIRC. I'm talking about upping share from below 3% and permanantely reversing years of decline, which is much more important.
I'm not sure everyone sees 'Market Share' as important.
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets. Those markets being cheap low profit computers and office computers - also low profit.
As long as Apple keep expanding sales of Macs, I don't think market share is that important to them. It's more important to them that they have market share in specific markets than overall perhaps - eg. in Video or Design or the tech edge. When was the last time you came across a leading Web 2.0 developer that didn't have a Mac ?
Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot.
I'd be very, very, very surprised if a Core Duo 1.8 with Intel GMA950 couldn't outrun a G4 with Radeon 7500. Really, if that's the minimum requirement on a game, it's probably going to be fine.
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets.
Actually, market share is on the rise.
US market share bottomed out at 1.8% a few years back, and it has risen to 5% now.
I'd like to see stats on home PC ownership to see how much higher that might be.
61 million computers sold in 4th quarter of 2005.
Here is a graph showing apple sales. I guess that market share growth did slow a bit in the 4th quarter (probably due to the intel transition). You can see the large change in mac sales before that in the graph, and hopefully it will widen out further due to the new Macbooks and dual booting:
Hey, I just got an email from Apple saying the MacBooks were starting at $1049. Oh wait, never mind, that's the educational price.
So I thought I would weigh in, since everyone seems to have an opinion. I think that the specs of the new MacBook are impressive for the price, especially the low-end one. For all but a few things, it equals the $1999 MBP I bought back in Feb. Differences: No Al. case, no DVD burning, no seperate graphics card, and a smaller screen. But for an $800 discount, that's a pretty sweet deal on the new low end MB.
My big beef is that the new keyboard design is hideously ugly and very un-apple-like. It just doesn't have style, period. Also, I think that the white MB would look a lot better if the whole thing were white, instead of the grayish color on the inner surface--but maybe it hides dirt better.
Finally, I think they were foolish not to come out with a model under $1000. You might as well give people an option. I think there are going to be a lot of students who are turned away because there's nothing under that psychological price break.
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over.
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers. [/B]
I think it's silly to look at market share back to 1995, that's a totally different era for the company. And I also think it's silly to call Apple's market share just a blip, they've made big improvements and I'm impressed how well sales have held up after the transition. I think as the transition finishes up and the remaining apps become universal, we'll see the rise continue, probably at an even faster pace.
I disagree that apple should worry about niche models at this point. There are big monolithic segments of the market where apple can potentially make huge gains. These need to be the highest priority, not machines that don't even sell well on the PC side. Later on, I think they should look at some of these niches, but it doesn't make sense now.
More models adds to testing and tech support, with a whole new architecture, I'd prefer Apple to keep things relatively simple until the bugs are worked out.
I do agree that they should offer a MB model with lower specs at a lower price point. But demand is pent up enough that they will have huge sales with this new release. There's nothing stopping them from releasing an additional model later on when supply has caught up with demand. At this point, a cheaper model would just create a bigger backlog and longer waits for these machines.
Apple certainly could offer more options, but you and I have no idea how well these would sell. You didn't address my question - if apple offers a model and it is a poor seller, why would it make sense to continue selling it?
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea. [/B]
I think the main reason is that demand is high enough right now that they don't have to. If they had a cheaper model, people would buy it instead of the more expensive ones. They can add the cheaper model once the initial frenzy of buying has settled down and they need to be more competitive.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora Its funny how the worst graphics in the industry became Ok after apple started using the cheap chip.
I think it became OK when those chips could play HD video. As long as the chips are good enough for what you are doing, who cares if they're "the worst in the industry"? Not everyone is playing first person shooters.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scooterboy I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU.[/B]
Just because it's not listed doesn't mean it won't work. There are a number of 3d games that run fine on the 950. I wouldn't make assumptions about any games until you've seen a benchmark from someone who's tried it.
It seems like most of the complaining about integrated graphics comes from people who've never used it on a mini or macbook.
I've just noticed if you go to buy a Black MacBook, and you try and up the HD. It's $50 cheaper than the White ones to upgrade the HD on both 100GB & 120GB, so it's not all bad news on the Black MacBook price
I've just noticed if you go to buy a Black MacBook, and you try and up the HD. It's $50 cheaper than the White ones to upgrade the HD on both 100GB & 120GB, so it's not all bad news on the Black MacBook price
Yes...but it's STILL cheaper to buy a white MacBook and upgrade the HD, idiot!
Have you seen it in person? I find the keyboard to be really nice, and it works very well too.
Yeah, I went and saw them last night. Not my style. I really like the beveled look a LOT more. It's true what everyone's saying, it looks like something from the 80's. Bad form Apple, bad form.
See other thread for rebuttal but this is clearly wrong as can be seen in the myriad Xerox PARC screen shots from the 70s.
Vinea
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
Comments
Originally posted by Ti Fighter
One Black Magicbook ordered. Finally have a new Logic machine.
Now the real question, do they come with black power adapters?
no
Originally posted by melgross
You haven't been on the board that long. When someone points out something that is obviously correct, I will always admit my error.
Heh, like Apple not inventing windowing as you stated?
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Heh, like Apple not inventing windowing as you stated?
Vinea
What are you talking about? I didn't say that Apple invented windowing. I said that they invented the form we use today.
If fact, Apple invented the idea of the windowing system that we all know. That is, of windows moving anywhere about the screen. Before that, windows could only stack one above the other, as when you open a bunch of documents, and they increment down the screen to the bottom, and to the right.
The other way was just one window open at a time. Thank Apple for the rest.
See other thread for rebuttal but this is clearly wrong as can be seen in the myriad Xerox PARC screen shots from the 70s.
Vinea
The black one cost more because apple obviously doesn't make as many as the white one, so it cost a little more to make. They don't make as many for 3 reasons:
1. It is the highest of 3 configs so why would as many black cases be built as white cases?
2. They don't want to make equal colours of everything to find half sitting in a warehouse. That's what happened with the gold ipod mini, it was a waste of money, time and space.
3. It becomes a status symbol. An Infiniti G35 body is not a body option for a Nissan Sentra.
I can live with that because it's better than having a warehouse full of unsold white or black machines because everyone opts for only model. That's what had happened to the white nanos at first until the craze for the black one calmed down, for something as big and as expensive as a notebook it makes no sense for a smaller volume company like apple.
Originally posted by Scooterboy
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
lmao.. If you think this computer cannot play the sims u must be a dumbass. reading out of date system requirements for 2d games means absolutely nothing.. If this thing can get 80 fps out of quake 3, just like the intel mac mini, then it can obviously play any of the games you mentioned.. That doesn't mean it rocks for gaming, but this chip is WAY better than a radeon 9000 or 7500
Originally posted by Mr. H
That was when their market share was nearer 10% IIRC. I'm talking about upping share from below 3% and permanantely reversing years of decline, which is much more important.
I'm not sure everyone sees 'Market Share' as important.
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets. Those markets being cheap low profit computers and office computers - also low profit.
As long as Apple keep expanding sales of Macs, I don't think market share is that important to them. It's more important to them that they have market share in specific markets than overall perhaps - eg. in Video or Design or the tech edge. When was the last time you came across a leading Web 2.0 developer that didn't have a Mac ?
Originally posted by Scooterboy
Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot.
I'd be very, very, very surprised if a Core Duo 1.8 with Intel GMA950 couldn't outrun a G4 with Radeon 7500. Really, if that's the minimum requirement on a game, it's probably going to be fine.
Originally posted by melgross
What are you talking about? I didn't say that Apple invented windowing. I said that they invented the form we use today.
Which is what form ?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Apple is selling more Macs recently than it ever has. Their market share has only been dipping because the market has got a lot larger and they've not expanded into those markets.
Actually, market share is on the rise.
US market share bottomed out at 1.8% a few years back, and it has risen to 5% now.
Originally posted by e1618978
US market share bottomed out at 1.8% a few years back, and it has risen to 5% now.
I'd like to see stats on home PC ownership to see how much higher that might be.
Originally posted by shetline
I'd like to see stats on home PC ownership to see how much higher that might be.
61 million computers sold in 4th quarter of 2005.
Here is a graph showing apple sales. I guess that market share growth did slow a bit in the 4th quarter (probably due to the intel transition). You can see the large change in mac sales before that in the graph, and hopefully it will widen out further due to the new Macbooks and dual booting:
So I thought I would weigh in, since everyone seems to have an opinion. I think that the specs of the new MacBook are impressive for the price, especially the low-end one. For all but a few things, it equals the $1999 MBP I bought back in Feb. Differences: No Al. case, no DVD burning, no seperate graphics card, and a smaller screen. But for an $800 discount, that's a pretty sweet deal on the new low end MB.
My big beef is that the new keyboard design is hideously ugly and very un-apple-like. It just doesn't have style, period. Also, I think that the white MB would look a lot better if the whole thing were white, instead of the grayish color on the inner surface--but maybe it hides dirt better.
Finally, I think they were foolish not to come out with a model under $1000. You might as well give people an option. I think there are going to be a lot of students who are turned away because there's nothing under that psychological price break.
[i]
My big beef is that the new keyboard design is hideously ugly and very un-apple-like. It just doesn't have style, period. [/B]
Have you seen it in person? I find the keyboard to be really nice, and it works very well too.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over.
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers. [/B]
I think it's silly to look at market share back to 1995, that's a totally different era for the company. And I also think it's silly to call Apple's market share just a blip, they've made big improvements and I'm impressed how well sales have held up after the transition. I think as the transition finishes up and the remaining apps become universal, we'll see the rise continue, probably at an even faster pace.
I disagree that apple should worry about niche models at this point. There are big monolithic segments of the market where apple can potentially make huge gains. These need to be the highest priority, not machines that don't even sell well on the PC side. Later on, I think they should look at some of these niches, but it doesn't make sense now.
More models adds to testing and tech support, with a whole new architecture, I'd prefer Apple to keep things relatively simple until the bugs are worked out.
I do agree that they should offer a MB model with lower specs at a lower price point. But demand is pent up enough that they will have huge sales with this new release. There's nothing stopping them from releasing an additional model later on when supply has caught up with demand. At this point, a cheaper model would just create a bigger backlog and longer waits for these machines.
Apple certainly could offer more options, but you and I have no idea how well these would sell. You didn't address my question - if apple offers a model and it is a poor seller, why would it make sense to continue selling it?
Originally posted by backtomac The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea. [/B]
I think the main reason is that demand is high enough right now that they don't have to. If they had a cheaper model, people would buy it instead of the more expensive ones. They can add the cheaper model once the initial frenzy of buying has settled down and they need to be more competitive.
Originally posted by Aurora Its funny how the worst graphics in the industry became Ok after apple started using the cheap chip.
I think it became OK when those chips could play HD video. As long as the chips are good enough for what you are doing, who cares if they're "the worst in the industry"? Not everyone is playing first person shooters.
Originally posted by Scooterboy I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU.[/B]
Just because it's not listed doesn't mean it won't work. There are a number of 3d games that run fine on the 950. I wouldn't make assumptions about any games until you've seen a benchmark from someone who's tried it.
It seems like most of the complaining about integrated graphics comes from people who've never used it on a mini or macbook.
Originally posted by Ireland
I've just noticed if you go to buy a Black MacBook, and you try and up the HD. It's $50 cheaper than the White ones to upgrade the HD on both 100GB & 120GB, so it's not all bad news on the Black MacBook price
Yes...but it's STILL cheaper to buy a white MacBook and upgrade the HD, idiot!
Originally posted by netdog
Have you seen it in person? I find the keyboard to be really nice, and it works very well too.
Yeah, I went and saw them last night. Not my style. I really like the beveled look a LOT more. It's true what everyone's saying, it looks like something from the 80's. Bad form Apple, bad form.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Which is what form ?
WIMP - Window Icon Menu Pointing device.
Sometimes Mouse vs Menu.
Originally posted by vinea
See other thread for rebuttal but this is clearly wrong as can be seen in the myriad Xerox PARC screen shots from the 70s.
Vinea
This is an interesting history of these developments from Bruce Horn, and Jeff Raskin.
Sadly, there are no pictures. But both, while the disagree in some detail, do agree that the Mac is much more than what Xerox had at PARC. Some of those ideas seen to have been had by Raskin back in 1967, when he did his thesis, though I haven't read it.
Apple innovated a great deal, and I'm not saying that they owed nothing to PARC. While my rememberances are not 100% either (whose is?), the concept I gave is correct.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gui_raskin2