Global Markets are up in valuations. People who sign zero day mortgages aren't investing heavily in Computers.
Organizations are re-evaluating their system strategies across the board.
Computers are LESS EXPENSIVE TODAY THAN THEY HAVE BEEN AT ANY TIME.
If you think these systems cost more today than you have an odd sense of Valuation.
I spent over $4000 on a 486dx/2 piece of trash with 8 MB of RAM in 1990. The average income back then was far less.
What you can't understand is how Apple can increase their margins while the rest of the industry is gashing their margins to subsist.
Apple is in it's own market.
When Motherboard designers produce Intel boards/AMD boards as clean as Apple's designs with tower cases as well integrated, designed and built you'll see people willing to spend more money on them.
WalMart is leaking valuation because it's Cheaper is always Better has ran it's course. WalMart knows this and has spent hundreds of millions in a brand new marketing campaign to get away from that mantra.
Perceived long-term value is what makes Apple continue to grow.
With OS X coming to a level that clearly beats up on Microsoft, combined with Mac Hardware running XP/Vista better than third party clone hardware designed to run Windows, you'll continue to see more converts to Mac Hardware.
dude! that's a mega smash answer... if i could just add that in my opinion this is just the beggining of the new giant, i also think that 10.5 is the number that will truly start to chop os market share it should double in less than 24 months, the iphone alone is going to be apple's rising star and i can only imagine what will touch os x is gonna bring in the future..
michael dell's worst nightmare just came true!
don't want to finish without pointing out that this is not just the return of steve jobs or apple, this is the mega comeback of the history of electronics..
This is really great news if you ask me. Now all they need to do is to put all (ok some) of that cash into R&Ding more TOUCH devices. In many ways I'm very impressed with what Apple delivers in things like the iPod Touch, I just don't think they realize that the consumer wants more in such devices than they are delivering.
Apple Please put a little time and R&D into a touch device that breaks out of the media player mold a bit. Such a device needs to be more than just a media device, it needs to be a full internet tablet, and have at least a bit of I/O. That I/O could be BlueTooth, but I'd settle for a Master USB port also.
I love that people keep insisting there is a 'subnotebook' just around the corner...
You're right, I should have said Apples "highly speculated" subnotebook.... If you follow the thread accordingly you'll see that there is ample evidence to support this one, unlike the crap about an "iPhone nano" this summer that everyone got all hyped about.
There will come a time soon when Apple will hit a wall where the luxury market can only take market share to a certain point. 90% of the market doesn't need or want quad cores with 4GB or RAM that they can edit HD video on. 90% want a computer that they can check email and ebay on. If you tell them a mythical $1000 mac could do this if one existed, they're still gonna go for the $400 PC instead everytime. 90% of the market.
By your definition, a Mac Mini is all 90% of the market wants or needs. Why aren't they selling like crazy then? Those same mythical 90% don't need slots and they don't need a mini-tower. if the sub $1000 computer was the answer, Mac mini sales would blow away iMac sales. But instead isn't apple showing that people are more than willing to pay extra for style and functionality? Who's market share is growing, the $499 dells or the 24" iMacs? Apple could have hit the $999 price point with a 17" model iMac, instead they eliminated the 17" model and their market share went up.
When people buy TVs they got to the store and buy the one that looks the best. That is often far more important than which one is cheapest. Apple is still the only computer company who has figured out that you can get that same kind of response selling computers.
A number of people on these forums have been giving reasons why touch, or multi-touch would be bad for desktops, and portables.
Jobs had said in response to a question a few months ago, that he saw this for mobile applications, not really for computers as such.
But Jobs is known to change his mind when other facts come out. This could be happening now.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad, especially if you can still plug in a keyboard/mouse? Certainly manipulating things like photos with multitouch on a 30" monitor would work just as well or better than it does on a iPhone screen. And certainly using it to scroll/zoom other things would work just as well also.
I saw a video a while back of an experimental multi-touch desktop computer - I don't have the link, though - and it certainly opens up new possibilities that go beyond what you see on the iPhone. For example, imaging manipulating the full google earth on your desktop with multitouch.
The desktop line receives a bump in numbers every time a major new design comes out.
My guess is this has more to do with the recent iMac redesign than anything else.
With Leopard out and a future iPhone/Touch SDK announced, could it be time to let the drumbeat begin again for the mythical mid-range Mac, that ever-so-logical gap filler between the iMac and MacPro?
But since 2/3 of Apple's total computers sold are now laptops, a much higher ratio than most manufacturers, I'll still give 3-1 odds that the next new Apple computing SKU will be something smaller than a MacBook. And could be an IPod Touch on steroids (with or without cell telephony), which purists and neologists will debate is more something that can be called a personal computer or is some new class of digital platform.
They have enough R&D money (if they want) to do both desktop and mobile, but opening up new markets altogether or grabbing coolness advantage in emerging ones seems more on their minds than competing with entrenched competitors in commodity markets. But they're also spending big ramping up production of all of their devices, building expensive brick and mortar stores, penetrating world markets, and probably on super-secret long-term initiatives -- and just dealing the complexity of a now huge but still rapidly-growing mega multi-national hardware, software, iDevice, entertainment retailing, telephony, workstation, server corporation.
Best shot for the long-awaiting: New cord tethered and new mobile lines at the same time, but if one comes first, it'll be mobile. Debuting both at the next MacWorld, though, could be pretty buzzy and synergistic for both lines. And probably as big as anything else they have in the immediate pipeline after all the big new products between June and October. 16 GB iPhones and 32 GB iPT's with the SDK, redesigned/refreshed MB's/MBP's, monster multi-processing MP's, and greener, better Cinema displays are all cool, but none are "one more thing" for the mass public and mainstream media Apple now courts.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad, especially if you can still plug in a keyboard/mouse? Certainly manipulating things like photos with multitouch on a 30" monitor would work just as well or better than it does on a iPhone screen. And certainly using it to scroll/zoom other things would work just as well also.
I have no idea how, or why it would be bad. I was on the side that said it would be great. Look at the Wacom Cintiq. While it doesn't use multi-touch, it's got the basic concept of writing on the screen. Big for pro's doing graphics and photos.
I saw a video a while back of an experimental multi-touch desktop computer - I don't have the link, though - and it certainly opens up new possibilities that go beyond what you see on the iPhone. For example, imaging manipulating the full google earth on your desktop with multitouch.
I have no idea how, or why it would be bad. I was on the side that said it would be great. Look at the Wacom Cintiq. While it doesn't use multi-touch, it's got the basic concept of writing on the screen. Big for pro's doing graphics and photos.
It's only about 8 minutes and is very much worth watching.
MS actually does have a product that they are pitching that's a lot like Jeff Han's device. They call it Surface. They are projecting the first ones to cost $10k, and going down as time goes on. I'm not sure if they even have a working product, but the Surface videos sure do look interesting. It's an open question as to whether it would be useful or productive, rather than just a fun play thing. I hope that someone comes up with a "killer app" idea.
interesting, I somehow hadn't heard of the Microsoft version. Hardware wise, it's basically an iMac. Apple must have multi-touch enabled versions of the iMac in their labs and they already have multitouch software built into Leopard and Cocoa for the iPhone. You have to wonder just how close they are to having something to ship.
interesting, I somehow hadn't heard of the Microsoft version. Hardware wise, it's basically an iMac. Apple must have multi-touch enabled versions of the iMac in their labs and they already have multitouch software built into Leopard and Cocoa for the iPhone. You have to wonder just how close they are to having something to ship.
I think Jobs said that multitouch on a regular computer is basically a lab project right now. I think what he said is that they are trying to see if there is a way to make it make sense for everyday computing, before they make a production unit. To me, it makes perfect sense on a handheld, but coming up with a good use case on a computer is a different matter. I think it would make a really cool tablet, but there are marketing and killer-app concerns with that too. I don't think the ability to finger paint and fling photos around is enough to make it a mainstream product.
By your definition, a Mac Mini is all 90% of the market wants or needs. Why aren't they selling like crazy then? Those same mythical 90% don't need slots and they don't need a mini-tower. if the sub $1000 computer was the answer, Mac mini sales would blow away iMac sales. But instead isn't apple showing that people are more than willing to pay extra for style and functionality? Who's market share is growing, the $499 dells or the 24" iMacs? Apple could have hit the $999 price point with a 17" model iMac, instead they eliminated the 17" model and their market share went up.
When people buy TVs they got to the store and buy the one that looks the best. That is often far more important than which one is cheapest. Apple is still the only computer company who has figured out that you can get that same kind of response selling computers.
alandail... People who want to spend less than $1000 will NEVER buy a mac-mini because it is a weakling with no upgradeability and I'm sure most people don't understand what it even is. Add a screen to it, bump up the power a bit, make it a case that can be opened to switch out drives and price it under $1k and THEY WILL SELL. The gist of my original comment was that there needed to be something between the Mini and the cheapest iMac. No one can claim Apple had a hard time selling sub $1k macs in the past.
As to the TV arguement, yes, most people will go for the one that looks the best but they plan to keep the set for more than a few years. Apple seems to want to sell machines to people who switch them out every couple of years. Big difference.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad
Touch my screen with your greasy fingers and this machete will show you how it can be possibly bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac
alandail... People who want to spend less than $1000 will NEVER buy a mac-mini because it is a weakling with no upgradeability and I'm sure most people don't understand what it even is. Add a screen to it, bump up the power a bit, make it a case that can be opened to switch out drives and price it under $1k and THEY WILL SELL. The gist of my original comment was that there needed to be something between the Mini and the cheapest iMac. No one can claim Apple had a hard time selling sub $1k macs in the past.
Most people never ever upgrade their computers on the inside beyond more ram and even then thy get the tech guys at a retail store to do it. Most PCs are huge empty boxes with empty card slots that never get used. Apple understands this.
I've worked in computer companies since 1987 and I've never once had the IT department round to upgrade my PC. It just doesn't happen. Instead I'll get a new PC every few years when the lease is up. It may happen in small companies perhaps but as a whole IT departments like to keep a standard config and never deviate on an individual users basis.
And when has Apple EVER sold Macs at significantly under $1K except the Mac Mini and eMac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac
As to the TV arguement, yes, most people will go for the one that looks the best but they plan to keep the set for more than a few years. Apple seems to want to sell machines to people who switch them out every couple of years. Big difference.
Regardless of the TV argument, which is nonsense - TVs don't generally stop showing the latest shows or need expanding - replacing your computer every few years is exactly what most people actually do and if you're paying attention, they generally replace PCs sooner than they replace Macs. So Apple seems to understand reality better than some people.
Comments
Now seriously, what are they going to do with that $15.4b in cash?
I think they have something like this in mind for the headquarters expansion.
Shareholders get to come to Cupertino and swim in it.
- Jasen.
I think they have something like this in mind for the headquarters expansion.
Shareholders get to come to Cupertino and swim in it.
- Jasen.
Now, without it being in English, it just looks weird. Esp as I have that particular comic.
Global Markets are up in valuations. People who sign zero day mortgages aren't investing heavily in Computers.
Organizations are re-evaluating their system strategies across the board.
Computers are LESS EXPENSIVE TODAY THAN THEY HAVE BEEN AT ANY TIME.
If you think these systems cost more today than you have an odd sense of Valuation.
I spent over $4000 on a 486dx/2 piece of trash with 8 MB of RAM in 1990. The average income back then was far less.
What you can't understand is how Apple can increase their margins while the rest of the industry is gashing their margins to subsist.
Apple is in it's own market.
When Motherboard designers produce Intel boards/AMD boards as clean as Apple's designs with tower cases as well integrated, designed and built you'll see people willing to spend more money on them.
WalMart is leaking valuation because it's Cheaper is always Better has ran it's course. WalMart knows this and has spent hundreds of millions in a brand new marketing campaign to get away from that mantra.
Perceived long-term value is what makes Apple continue to grow.
With OS X coming to a level that clearly beats up on Microsoft, combined with Mac Hardware running XP/Vista better than third party clone hardware designed to run Windows, you'll continue to see more converts to Mac Hardware.
dude! that's a mega smash answer...
michael dell's worst nightmare just came true!
don't want to finish without pointing out that this is not just the return of steve jobs or apple, this is the mega comeback of the history of electronics..
Who cares!
I'm pretty sure that the purpose of Apple's new "subnotebook" is to gain much needed ground (and respect) in Japan.
This is a huge market, and often times an industry leader in product adoption.
I'm pretty sure that the purpose of Apple's new "subnotebook" is to gain much needed ground (and respect) in Japan.
This is a huge market, and often times an industry leader in product adoption.
And what new subnotebook is that?
Apple Please put a little time and R&D into a touch device that breaks out of the media player mold a bit. Such a device needs to be more than just a media device, it needs to be a full internet tablet, and have at least a bit of I/O. That I/O could be BlueTooth, but I'd settle for a Master USB port also.
Thanks
Dave
I love that people keep insisting there is a 'subnotebook' just around the corner...
You're right, I should have said Apples "highly speculated" subnotebook.... If you follow the thread accordingly you'll see that there is ample evidence to support this one, unlike the crap about an "iPhone nano" this summer that everyone got all hyped about.
There will come a time soon when Apple will hit a wall where the luxury market can only take market share to a certain point. 90% of the market doesn't need or want quad cores with 4GB or RAM that they can edit HD video on. 90% want a computer that they can check email and ebay on. If you tell them a mythical $1000 mac could do this if one existed, they're still gonna go for the $400 PC instead everytime. 90% of the market.
By your definition, a Mac Mini is all 90% of the market wants or needs. Why aren't they selling like crazy then? Those same mythical 90% don't need slots and they don't need a mini-tower. if the sub $1000 computer was the answer, Mac mini sales would blow away iMac sales. But instead isn't apple showing that people are more than willing to pay extra for style and functionality? Who's market share is growing, the $499 dells or the 24" iMacs? Apple could have hit the $999 price point with a 17" model iMac, instead they eliminated the 17" model and their market share went up.
When people buy TVs they got to the store and buy the one that looks the best. That is often far more important than which one is cheapest. Apple is still the only computer company who has figured out that you can get that same kind of response selling computers.
This is an interesting point.
A number of people on these forums have been giving reasons why touch, or multi-touch would be bad for desktops, and portables.
Jobs had said in response to a question a few months ago, that he saw this for mobile applications, not really for computers as such.
But Jobs is known to change his mind when other facts come out. This could be happening now.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad, especially if you can still plug in a keyboard/mouse? Certainly manipulating things like photos with multitouch on a 30" monitor would work just as well or better than it does on a iPhone screen. And certainly using it to scroll/zoom other things would work just as well also.
I saw a video a while back of an experimental multi-touch desktop computer - I don't have the link, though - and it certainly opens up new possibilities that go beyond what you see on the iPhone. For example, imaging manipulating the full google earth on your desktop with multitouch.
The desktop line receives a bump in numbers every time a major new design comes out.
My guess is this has more to do with the recent iMac redesign than anything else.
With Leopard out and a future iPhone/Touch SDK announced, could it be time to let the drumbeat begin again for the mythical mid-range Mac, that ever-so-logical gap filler between the iMac and MacPro?
But since 2/3 of Apple's total computers sold are now laptops, a much higher ratio than most manufacturers, I'll still give 3-1 odds that the next new Apple computing SKU will be something smaller than a MacBook. And could be an IPod Touch on steroids (with or without cell telephony), which purists and neologists will debate is more something that can be called a personal computer or is some new class of digital platform.
They have enough R&D money (if they want) to do both desktop and mobile, but opening up new markets altogether or grabbing coolness advantage in emerging ones seems more on their minds than competing with entrenched competitors in commodity markets. But they're also spending big ramping up production of all of their devices, building expensive brick and mortar stores, penetrating world markets, and probably on super-secret long-term initiatives -- and just dealing the complexity of a now huge but still rapidly-growing mega multi-national hardware, software, iDevice, entertainment retailing, telephony, workstation, server corporation.
Best shot for the long-awaiting: New cord tethered and new mobile lines at the same time, but if one comes first, it'll be mobile. Debuting both at the next MacWorld, though, could be pretty buzzy and synergistic for both lines. And probably as big as anything else they have in the immediate pipeline after all the big new products between June and October. 16 GB iPhones and 32 GB iPT's with the SDK, redesigned/refreshed MB's/MBP's, monster multi-processing MP's, and greener, better Cinema displays are all cool, but none are "one more thing" for the mass public and mainstream media Apple now courts.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad, especially if you can still plug in a keyboard/mouse? Certainly manipulating things like photos with multitouch on a 30" monitor would work just as well or better than it does on a iPhone screen. And certainly using it to scroll/zoom other things would work just as well also.
I have no idea how, or why it would be bad. I was on the side that said it would be great. Look at the Wacom Cintiq. While it doesn't use multi-touch, it's got the basic concept of writing on the screen. Big for pro's doing graphics and photos.
http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/
I saw a video a while back of an experimental multi-touch desktop computer - I don't have the link, though - and it certainly opens up new possibilities that go beyond what you see on the iPhone. For example, imaging manipulating the full google earth on your desktop with multitouch.
That's MS's machine.
I have no idea how, or why it would be bad. I was on the side that said it would be great. Look at the Wacom Cintiq. While it doesn't use multi-touch, it's got the basic concept of writing on the screen. Big for pro's doing graphics and photos.
http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/
That's MS's machine.
It's not MS, and I found the video
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65
It's only about 8 minutes and is very much worth watching.
It's not MS, and I found the video
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65
It's only about 8 minutes and is very much worth watching.
MS actually does have a product that they are pitching that's a lot like Jeff Han's device. They call it Surface. They are projecting the first ones to cost $10k, and going down as time goes on. I'm not sure if they even have a working product, but the Surface videos sure do look interesting. It's an open question as to whether it would be useful or productive, rather than just a fun play thing. I hope that someone comes up with a "killer app" idea.
A friend of mine is running a company that has a multitouch display system for sale.
Some info (in English) here:
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1773/2007/174/index-en.html
It's not MS, and I found the video
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65
It's only about 8 minutes and is very much worth watching.
I wasn't thinking of that one. I was thinking of the Surface model that MS has, as Jeff mentioned.
interesting, I somehow hadn't heard of the Microsoft version. Hardware wise, it's basically an iMac. Apple must have multi-touch enabled versions of the iMac in their labs and they already have multitouch software built into Leopard and Cocoa for the iPhone. You have to wonder just how close they are to having something to ship.
I think Jobs said that multitouch on a regular computer is basically a lab project right now. I think what he said is that they are trying to see if there is a way to make it make sense for everyday computing, before they make a production unit. To me, it makes perfect sense on a handheld, but coming up with a good use case on a computer is a different matter. I think it would make a really cool tablet, but there are marketing and killer-app concerns with that too. I don't think the ability to finger paint and fling photos around is enough to make it a mainstream product.
By your definition, a Mac Mini is all 90% of the market wants or needs. Why aren't they selling like crazy then? Those same mythical 90% don't need slots and they don't need a mini-tower. if the sub $1000 computer was the answer, Mac mini sales would blow away iMac sales. But instead isn't apple showing that people are more than willing to pay extra for style and functionality? Who's market share is growing, the $499 dells or the 24" iMacs? Apple could have hit the $999 price point with a 17" model iMac, instead they eliminated the 17" model and their market share went up.
When people buy TVs they got to the store and buy the one that looks the best. That is often far more important than which one is cheapest. Apple is still the only computer company who has figured out that you can get that same kind of response selling computers.
alandail... People who want to spend less than $1000 will NEVER buy a mac-mini because it is a weakling with no upgradeability and I'm sure most people don't understand what it even is. Add a screen to it, bump up the power a bit, make it a case that can be opened to switch out drives and price it under $1k and THEY WILL SELL. The gist of my original comment was that there needed to be something between the Mini and the cheapest iMac. No one can claim Apple had a hard time selling sub $1k macs in the past.
As to the TV arguement, yes, most people will go for the one that looks the best but they plan to keep the set for more than a few years. Apple seems to want to sell machines to people who switch them out every couple of years. Big difference.
how could multi-touch on a computer possibly be bad
Touch my screen with your greasy fingers and this machete will show you how it can be possibly bad.
alandail... People who want to spend less than $1000 will NEVER buy a mac-mini because it is a weakling with no upgradeability and I'm sure most people don't understand what it even is. Add a screen to it, bump up the power a bit, make it a case that can be opened to switch out drives and price it under $1k and THEY WILL SELL. The gist of my original comment was that there needed to be something between the Mini and the cheapest iMac. No one can claim Apple had a hard time selling sub $1k macs in the past.
Most people never ever upgrade their computers on the inside beyond more ram and even then thy get the tech guys at a retail store to do it. Most PCs are huge empty boxes with empty card slots that never get used. Apple understands this.
I've worked in computer companies since 1987 and I've never once had the IT department round to upgrade my PC. It just doesn't happen. Instead I'll get a new PC every few years when the lease is up. It may happen in small companies perhaps but as a whole IT departments like to keep a standard config and never deviate on an individual users basis.
And when has Apple EVER sold Macs at significantly under $1K except the Mac Mini and eMac?
As to the TV arguement, yes, most people will go for the one that looks the best but they plan to keep the set for more than a few years. Apple seems to want to sell machines to people who switch them out every couple of years. Big difference.
Regardless of the TV argument, which is nonsense - TVs don't generally stop showing the latest shows or need expanding - replacing your computer every few years is exactly what most people actually do and if you're paying attention, they generally replace PCs sooner than they replace Macs. So Apple seems to understand reality better than some people.