At the company I work for, we just got 7 of the new MacBooks and I have been dealing with the lack of firewire on them in order to image them to get them ready for users. The first roadblock I hit was that all our boot drives that host the disk images are single interface FW drives. Luckily we have 2 2.5" USB2 drives and I've partitioned them and turned them into boot drives that can boot the MacBooks (pretty fast too). OK, so now I can create and deploy images from a local drive.
Now the files transfer when deploying to a new user. I used to use Migration assistant. i still use Migration Assistant but now via Gigabit ethernet. Fast and no problems! Direct connect crossover works great.
Some notes: Holding the T key down on start up does nothing. I was hoping for some USB target disk mode but no luck. We have some FW cameras we have not found a way to get them to work with the new systems. Luckily we have some freelance workstations people can hop on and capture the video from. You smudge up the camera when opening it. At least it's easy to clean.
i can tell you (from experience on very large, very high budget projects) that
1. just because a company's big (or makes a big profit) in no way means they do things well or the best they can
2. business is (should be) about communication, and you don't communicate to partners (read peripheral makers) by.... not communicating with them.
If Apple was serious about replacing FW then they'd do it properly - as in firstly come up with a replacement, then do a SJ "this is the next best thing" meeting, allow a period of overlap (arguably what their doing with the whitebooks - except there is no replacement...) and on the side (preferably earlier), warn the peripheral makers what's coming so that they can adapt quickly.
I know this is going to be flamed by the fanboys - but they'll take what they're given, make a little noise then still buy - either because they're locked in, or they still think Apple's cool...
However if there's anyone out there from a business that's ever considered buying a significant quantity of Macs (significant = whatever would seriously hurt your business if you had to replace them and the software with another brand.) Can you please tell us what you think of Apple's 'non-communicative' attitude... Does business have more or less confidence in Apple after these kinds of moves?
We're already heard from some schools in this thread...
Do we think Apple's doing themselves a service with this approach? OK it's nothing new, but at the same time as trying to break into the business market, they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot with their lack of communication.
You could simply respond that FW is irrelevant for business... or that MBs are irrelevant for business... but that would be avoiding the issue. The attitude towards FW shows Apple's way of doing product upgrades is hard to predict - which is the last thing any business needs at this point.
Or can large businesses have the confidence to invest heavily in Apple hard/software while Apple actively attempts to maintain a hard/software monopoly ? (Which makes all users all the more susceptible to product changes since there is no alternative without significant re-investment and wasted time.)
Extremely well said.
The comeback, of course, is that Apple isn't really interested in the business market, "Steve even said so", etc. etc. But I strongly suspect that Steve's comments vis a vis the business market are another one of those things Steve says that's "true, 'til it's not true." Kinda like how no one wants to watch video on an iPod.
Assuming that Apple's Mac marketshare continues to increase like it has, at some point down the road, Apple runs out of well-heeled consumers to sell to... they hit a wall in terms of Mac marketshare (very likely in the US long before anywhere else).
What then? Do they stagnate in the PC market, which is a huge percentage of Apple's overall revenue, or do they want to continue to be a growth company? I strongly suspect the latter. So okay, in that case... do they then go into lower pricepoints to grab more consumers? Steve seems like he'd rather contract ebola than do that. It goes against so many of his cherished biases.
What's the alternative to that? Biz/enterprise. Yeah, it's generally a price-sensitive market, but not all businesses think the same way. Some have expressed an interest to moving to Macs even now, at current quite-a-lot-higher-than-Dell prices. Steve will likely have to lower prices anyway, no matter what, but he might be able to avoid the 'commodization' trap, while still growing the Mac market strongly.
So, things kinda point towards Apple getting into the business/enterprise market in a big way... someday. We're just not quite there yet.
The comeback, of course, is that Apple isn't really interested in the business market, "Steve even said so", etc. etc. But I strongly suspect that Steve's comments vis a vis the business market are another one of those things Steve says that's "true, 'til it's not true." Kinda like how no one wants to watch video on an iPod.
Assuming that Apple's Mac marketshare continues to increase like it has, at some point down the road, Apple runs out of well-heeled consumers to sell to... they hit a wall in terms of Mac marketshare (very likely in the US long before anywhere else).
What then? Do they stagnate in the PC market, which is a huge percentage of Apple's overall revenue, or do they want to continue to be a growth company? I strongly suspect the latter. So okay, in that case... do they then go into lower pricepoints to grab more consumers? Steve seems like he'd rather contract ebola than do that. It goes against so many of his cherished biases.
What's the alternative to that? Biz/enterprise. Yeah, it's generally a price-sensitive market, but not all businesses think the same way. Some have expressed an interest to moving to Macs even now, at current quite-a-lot-higher-than-Dell prices. Steve will likely have to lower prices anyway, no matter what, but he might be able to avoid the 'commodization' trap, while still growing the Mac market strongly.
So, things kinda point towards Apple getting into the business/enterprise market in a big way... someday. We're just not quite there yet.
...
This is why Apple is inching back into the market. They are doing things that will appeal to them, and obviously do, without making an all out turnabout.
Apple wants business customers these days, but more on their own terms than the businesses terms. They seem to be more interested in doing this in the level of the OS, rather than at the level of the hardware, though, the MB does seem to have moved in that direction, as have the iMacs, which are also finding favor in business, after business said they really didn't want an all in one. The Mini is doing very well in specialized markets where the computer is not actually being used directly.
So Apple is very much indeed in business, one way or the other.
As the consuer and business markets continue to converge, we'll see more of it.
Also, business does not, as a rule, buy the least expensive machines. I read in ComputerWorld a short while ago, that business buys desktops that are about $1,000, not including the monitor. They buy laptops for about $1,500.
HardMac broke the story that the 'late 2008' MacBook Pro has improved USB 2.0 speed. We posted their link on our Quick Takes but want to "second the motion" by posting our own findings.
Really wish we could have seen some latency tests as well.
David Pogue has revealed that he had the opportunity to personally speak to Steve Jobs and question the decision to leave FW off the MacBook.
And?
Although Apple officially STILL remains silent on the issue, an issue that has provoked more uproar and for a longer period of time than any other techology decision from the company that I can remember, it has become very clear in my mind that Firewire is DEAD.
I believe Apple is making a tremendous error of judgement.
David Pogue has revealed that he had the opportunity to personally speak to Steve Jobs and question the decision to leave FW off the MacBook.
And?
Although Apple officially STILL remains silent on the issue, an issue that has provoked more uproar and for a longer period of time than any other techology decision from the company that I can remember, it has become very clear in my mind that Firewire is DEAD.
I believe Apple is making a tremendous error of judgement.
So Apple is very much indeed in [the] business [market], one way or the other.
As the consumer and business markets continue to converge, we'll see more of it.
Which makes otwayross' comments on Apple's uncommunicative nature, unpredictable product upgrades, and hardware monopoly quite pertinent. All those things tend to drive business customers away.
Totally agree with your comment about how "Apple wants business customers, but very much on Apple's terms and not on the businesses' terms", though. One of the better summations I've heard.
Also, business does not, as a rule, buy the least expensive machines. I read in ComputerWorld a short while ago, that business buys desktops that are about $1,000, not including the monitor. They buy laptops for about $1,500.
It's one of those "it depends" things. I definitely wouldn't label price a non-factor or minor factor in the biz market though.
I used to work at Sony, and I remember when our dept needed some new comps. There was a significant wait before we could get the funds, and while the higher-ups wanted us to get something that "could do the job", it was pretty damn clear that we weren't being handed a blank check.
In the end, we were able to score some pretty decent midrange PC minitowers (thanks for NOT MAKING those btw, Apple, and completely taking yourself out of the running), plus a couple of lower-end iMacs (the iMacs somehow ended up going to the higher-ups... of course. ).
That wasn't too bad, but during some times our dept was shockingly price-restricted. Like the time when we asked IT for some RAM upgrades to our old, aging desktop PCs (this was before we bought the new comps). They upped us to 1GB, no prob, but when we asked to be upped to 2GB a few months later, it was no dice. And this was *RAM*, for pete's sake.
So, I'd say that businesses can most definitely be price-sensitive, but it comes and goes, depending on how the company is doing and what 'priorities of the month' are coming in from the higher-ups.
If the budget's being squeezed, you're screwed, basically, and have to wait for fatter times to get something decent. And a lot of even that depends on who you know and is dependent on your boss not being a tool.
"when Apple drops FireWire from its bestselling machine, it's a good bet that other models will follow.)
Last week, on the phone, I got a chance to vent my unhappiness to Steve Jobs himself. I told him about my long-held intention to edit down those 100 tapes, maybe when I'm retired.
I must admit, he gave me quite a wakeup call. He pointed out that in 10 years, there won't be any machines left that can play them.
(He also mentioned that, realistically, the only time people really edit their movies is just after they've shot them. And sure enough: I've been intending to edit my tapes for 15 years now; what makes me think I'll have time to do it in the next 15?)
Mac and video fans may not like it--especially the part about having to buy a new, tapeless camcorder--but the writing is on the wall. Tape is dead; camcorder manufacturers have been saying as much for years now. And Apple is not about to preserve some legacy jack just for the sake of the dwindling MiniDV cult."
"The company points out--accurately, alas--that nobody's buying tape camcorders anymore; people either buy memory-card or hard-drive camcorders, or they just record video on their digital still cameras. All of which connect to a computer by USB."
"you can transfer huge files extremely quickly [with firewire]
Apple says, "You can do the same thing with an Ethernet cable," and that's true. But Target Disk Mode also lets you repair or recover Mac #2 if it won't start up, and there's no replacement for that tactic."
You can use a bootable hard disk or remove the drive and use an enclosure for the last part.
None of this changes the fact that people who currently own firewire devices will have to replace them. Apple should have provided a solution of some sort to allow people to use their devices. Even when they got rid of the floppy, you could buy an external one.
Even if they had something like an Elgato stick that would capture video from a camera using a hardware encoder.
I don't think firewire will be removed from the desktops if there's room for it but from the article above, it looks like Apple don't see a need for it any more. This is the beginning of the end.
It makes sense given that fast data transfer is all that's needed so we should transition to a better format. Apple know that USB 3 is on the way at 4.8Gbps and that's faster than any port we have now, even the newest firewire developments and there's supposed to be a wireless part to it.
There generally aren't firewire mice, scanners, printers, webcams etc. These are mostly USB so continuing with firewire means you always have to have two types of port. With USB3, you have one type for everything. You could even replace ethernet with a USB3 port.
It minimizes redundancy because there will rarely be a port you don't use. People won't say 'well I hardly ever use the firewire/ethernet/whatever port anyway'. If it's all USB3, no port type will go unused. I also think it will be a while before people find 4.8Gbps to be too slow. That is fast enough to fill a 1TB drive in under half an hour.
If it can act as a display output in the same way as displayport, all you'd have on a future Macbook is 4-5 USB3 ports. It could come as early as next year:
Ideally, Apple would have waited until USB3 was in place before dropping firewire but the redesign had to happen now. Intel have published the spec so it's just a matter of time:
USB3 could be an addition used to sell the Macbook in 6 months when it will just get a CPU bump. It is the last element in the high performance agenda: fast processing (GPU, multi-core), fast storage (SSD), fast transfer (USB3).
It's one of those "it depends" things. I definitely wouldn't label price a non-factor or minor factor in the biz market though.
I used to work at Sony, and I remember when our dept needed some new comps. There was a significant wait before we could get the funds, and while the higher-ups wanted us to get something that "could do the job", it was pretty damn clear that we weren't being handed a blank check.
In the end, we were able to score some pretty decent midrange PC minitowers (thanks for NOT MAKING those btw, Apple, and completely taking yourself out of the running), plus a couple of lower-end iMacs (the iMacs somehow ended up going to the higher-ups... of course. ).
That wasn't too bad, but during some times our dept was shockingly price-restricted. Like the time when we asked IT for some RAM upgrades to our old, aging desktop PCs (this was before we bought the new comps). They upped us to 1GB, no prob, but when we asked to be upped to 2GB a few months later, it was no dice. And this was *RAM*, for pete's sake.
So, I'd say that businesses can most definitely be price-sensitive, but it comes and goes, depending on how the company is doing and what 'priorities of the month' are coming in from the higher-ups.
If the budget's being squeezed, you're screwed, basically, and have to wait for fatter times to get something decent. And a lot of even that depends on who you know and is dependent on your boss not being a tool.
...
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
I agree that business will rarely upgrade machines however I don't see what the specific tax troubles are. Any separate parts for upgrades are considered separate items (whether it's RAM or an LCD) and are therefore depreciated separately (from the date of purchase), while service is considered a direct cost and is written off as such.
But if you said that business can rarely be bothered upgrading a machine, then I'd agree with that... \
The other thing I don't understand is this attitude that businesses have such deep pockets that cost is not an issue... that may be so in some industries (I'm not sure which ones) but I'm working on a v. large budget project and the IT nazis are very strict with personal limits on most things. I keep asking them why my mail storage is limited to 200 MB when I can get 7GB free on the net and storage generally costs less that $1 per G... and yes I am deliberately facitious with them
PS my "up-to-date" question earlier was badly expressed... I meant upgrade, as in business want to know that when they invest in an item (in this case computer hardware/software/peripherals) and it requires upgrading, replacement (in a couple of years) or simply additional units sometime sooner, the same product and features will be available. Which is why business will rarely invest in single source items due to lack of competition and certainty of supply.
I agree that business will rarely upgrade machines however I don't see what the specific tax troubles are. Any separate parts for upgrades are considered separate items (whether it's RAM or an LCD) and are therefore depreciated separately (from the date of purchase), while service is considered a direct cost and is written off as such.
Unlike machines, memory is rarely allowed to be accounted for as a capital expenditure. It's expensed. That's very different, and accounted for very differently. The tax benefits are much less.
{quote}
But if you said that business can rarely be bothered upgrading a machine, then I'd agree with that... \[/quote]
Yes, that's a big part of it as well. It's very expensive to upgrade machines, mostly from the cost of the time of the employees.
An example can be understood from the expense of lighting. While is only costs about $2.50 for a 4 foot fluorescent tube, it costs over $6 to have a person replace one. While memory is more expensive than lighting, the cost of the personell is much higher as well. It may seem that replacing two DIMMS may cost $50, but it may actually cost $100, once all the factors of time, ordering, traffic, disposal of old chips, packaging etc. are added in. Much of that is not chargable.
Quote:
The other thing I don't understand is this attitude that businesses have such deep pockets that cost is not an issue... that may be so in some industries (I'm not sure which ones) but I'm working on a v. large budget project and the IT nazis are very strict with personal limits on most things. I keep asking them why my mail storage is limited to 200 MB when I can get 7GB free on the net and storage generally costs less that $1 per G... and yes I am deliberately facitious with them
You've missed the point here entirely. No one has said that at all. You can't compare a company such as Google, which sells services and receives billions in ad dollars for the services it "gives" away, with the costs a company incurs for the same services, and the much more limited bandwidth is has available. In most companies, IT is a service, not a profit center. Therefor it must account for its budget differently. That's because as a service, it's purely a drain on the company. While it is obviously required, most companies look at it as something they must have, rather than a department they would like to have. It's backoffice, like accounting, which is also a negative budget area, though required.
Particularly when times are tough, companies prefer to cut where marketing and sales are not involved. So, after the 2000 question, IT budgets have been down.
Quote:
PS my "up-to-date" question earlier was badly expressed... I meant upgrade, as in business want to know that when they invest in an item (in this case computer hardware/software/peripherals) and it requires upgrading, replacement (in a couple of years) or simply additional units sometime sooner, the same product and features will be available. Which is why business will rarely invest in single source items due to lack of competition and certainty of supply.
Well, yes. Often, when companies do their buying budgets, they are on three year plans. One reason why Apple has often been left out of those plans is because they won't do the three year part to part guarantee other manufacturers are willing to do.
Many companies, particularly the larger ones, require that on that three year plan, all the machines they order be EXACTLY the same. Exactly! Part for part. Every cap and resistor be the same, from the same company, even.
They want to know that when they have problems with those machines, as they will, the problems will be predictable, and therefore easily repaired.
Apple doesn't do this. It keeps them out of the bidding process in many companies.
I didn't say they did. But I did say that price tends to be a major consideration, and I fully stand behind that statement.
Quote:
They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
Apparently that memo did not get through to our higher-ups... our comp buys averaged in the $1,200 range, and we were told by IT that we were somewhat "lucky" in that we got better comps than most of the teeming masses were afforded.
You might be exactly right about the depro thing, but it doesn't matter if the 'powers that be' are either unaware of the depro advantages or choose to ignore them.
Quote:
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
I honestly got the impression that they really did not have things thought out that far. It seemed to be more just a reaction to how much money was on tap at the time. But on that one, who knows.
I didn't say they did. But I did say that price tends to be a major consideration, and I fully stand behind that statement.
I didn't mean for my reply to look as though you said that. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just stating it up front.
Quote:
Apparently that memo did not get through to our higher-ups... our comp buys averaged in the $1,200 range, and we were told by IT that we were somewhat "lucky" in that we got better comps than most of the teeming masses were afforded.
You might be exactly right about the depro thing, but it doesn't matter if the 'powers that be' are either unaware of the depro advantages or choose to ignore them.
Well, those numbers are just an average. Each companies points will vary somewhat. And as we know, not all people in management are as competent as others.
Quote:
I honestly got the impression that they really did not have things thought out that far. It seemed to be more just a reaction to how much money was on tap at the time.
...
If a company is really being strained, then that could be a factor. But usually, companies like to work things out over a longer term. Investors like that.
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
Wow I wish I worked for a company that bought $1,500 computers for everyone!! My first company bought the cheapest IBM business computers (You know the ones that every MB and HD died) for about $600/ea. The last company I worked for bought new Dells recently and I priced them out online and they bought the cheapest rig that they offered, with 1GB of ram and 80GB hard drives for about $750/ea.
Granted I have only worked for 3 corporations thus far but price outweighs depreciation worries because it has to come out of someones revenue and therefore managements bonuses etc. Common it's the "Do more with less" America we live in nowadays!
Wow I wish I worked for a company that bought $1,500 computers for everyone!! My first company bought the cheapest IBM business computers (You know the ones that every MB and HD died) for about $600/ea. The last company I worked for bought new Dells recently and I priced them out online and they bought the cheapest rig that they offered, with 1GB of ram and 80GB hard drives for about $750/ea.
Granted I have only worked for 3 corporations thus far but price outweighs depreciation worries because it has to come out of someones revenue and therefore managements bonuses etc. Common it's the "Do more with less" America we live in nowadays!
Actually, price doesn't overweigh depreciation worries for most companies. The numbers I stated were from articles in Computerworld, who got them from surveying a large number of medium and large corporations.
There will always be outliers, and in a time of stress, as we've been in the past year or so, these nmbers may break towards the lower end, because of concern over current cash positions, debt, etc.
Unlike machines, memory is rarely allowed to be accounted for as a capital expenditure. It's expensed. That's very different, and accounted for very differently. The tax benefits are much less.
actually if you look at the US Master Depreciation Guide page 125 you'll find that some computer parts count as "rotable spare parts" which can be depreciated.
So in fact from the tables, if you purchase the parts after the original machine
(and assuming you can justify that it will not be useful after the life of the machine)
you'll get at least the same depreciation rate,
possibly higher if you can use the straight line method (rate = 1/number of years).
Also, according to the guide, computers are generally assumed to be a 5 year asset (see page 93).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Yes, that's a big part of it as well. It's very expensive to upgrade machines, mostly from the cost of the time of the employees.
An example can be understood from the expense of lighting. While is only costs about $2.50 for a 4 foot fluorescent tube, it costs over $6 to have a person replace one. While memory is more expensive than lighting, the cost of the personell is much higher as well. It may seem that replacing two DIMMS may cost $50, but it may actually cost $100, once all the factors of time, ordering, traffic, disposal of old chips, packaging etc. are added in. Much of that is not chargable.
OK but any payment for service invoiced external should be counted as a cost - and as you point out internal IT services are treated as overheads (same thing)
- but yes wasted time by a business owner can't be counted really...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You've missed the point here entirely. No one has said that at all.
Sorry Mel I don't think I have missed the point. Lots of people keep saying
(and I'm not sure it's necessarily you who's proposing this)
"if you've got a business just buy the MBP and depreciate it" as if:
1. all businesses can afford or are willing to get a machine that expensive
2. you could be ahead in terms of depreciation by buying a more expensive item
remember that while you may end up with a bigger tax deduction over the life of a more expensive machine
the non-deducted money is still tied up for the majority of that period
so if you can deduct 17.5% per year over 5 years (just example figures from the tables - not using the straight line method),
then after Year 1 you still have 82.5% of your money tied up, not available, not earning anything.
82.5% of a $1299 MP is 1070
82.5% of a $1999 MBP is 1650
and for some businesses that $580 difference multiplied by X number of machines could be a lot
but yes, if you're just out to get the biggest deduction possible over the life of the machine
Again, you do not get it. Without Target Disk Mode you cannot repair. Full stop. Or else open the case, place the disk elsewhere for Target Disk Mode, waste your time, break something and increase repair costs. How can people be so BLIND!!!??? It just costs 20 cents to implement Firewire!
APPLE: NO FIREWIRE, NO PURCHASE. The decision is yours.
I suggest buying a MBP instead of a MB. I completely agree that Target Disk Mode is a tremendous advantage in Apple laptops, and I use it all the time, but I am not convinced that it is the only solution in the MB. Of course, I admit that I like using my iPod as a portable hard drive so am happiest with a Classic, and hate the touch because I cannot dump things to it from the desktop-- I know, different topic, but I'm all for more ports and USB&Firewire. I'm the guy who actually liked the early iPods having FIrewire, but boy was I wrong and Apple right about making USB the wave of the future--- let's see speedier USB drives.
Comments
Now the files transfer when deploying to a new user. I used to use Migration assistant. i still use Migration Assistant but now via Gigabit ethernet. Fast and no problems! Direct connect crossover works great.
Some notes: Holding the T key down on start up does nothing. I was hoping for some USB target disk mode but no luck. We have some FW cameras we have not found a way to get them to work with the new systems. Luckily we have some freelance workstations people can hop on and capture the video from. You smudge up the camera when opening it. At least it's easy to clean.
i can tell you (from experience on very large, very high budget projects) that
1. just because a company's big (or makes a big profit) in no way means they do things well or the best they can
2. business is (should be) about communication, and you don't communicate to partners (read peripheral makers) by.... not communicating with them.
If Apple was serious about replacing FW then they'd do it properly - as in firstly come up with a replacement, then do a SJ "this is the next best thing" meeting, allow a period of overlap (arguably what their doing with the whitebooks - except there is no replacement...) and on the side (preferably earlier), warn the peripheral makers what's coming so that they can adapt quickly.
I know this is going to be flamed by the fanboys - but they'll take what they're given, make a little noise then still buy - either because they're locked in, or they still think Apple's cool...
However if there's anyone out there from a business that's ever considered buying a significant quantity of Macs (significant = whatever would seriously hurt your business if you had to replace them and the software with another brand.) Can you please tell us what you think of Apple's 'non-communicative' attitude... Does business have more or less confidence in Apple after these kinds of moves?
We're already heard from some schools in this thread...
Do we think Apple's doing themselves a service with this approach? OK it's nothing new, but at the same time as trying to break into the business market, they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot with their lack of communication.
You could simply respond that FW is irrelevant for business... or that MBs are irrelevant for business... but that would be avoiding the issue. The attitude towards FW shows Apple's way of doing product upgrades is hard to predict - which is the last thing any business needs at this point.
Or can large businesses have the confidence to invest heavily in Apple hard/software while Apple actively attempts to maintain a hard/software monopoly ? (Which makes all users all the more susceptible to product changes since there is no alternative without significant re-investment and wasted time.)
Extremely well said.
The comeback, of course, is that Apple isn't really interested in the business market, "Steve even said so", etc. etc. But I strongly suspect that Steve's comments vis a vis the business market are another one of those things Steve says that's "true, 'til it's not true." Kinda like how no one wants to watch video on an iPod.
Assuming that Apple's Mac marketshare continues to increase like it has, at some point down the road, Apple runs out of well-heeled consumers to sell to... they hit a wall in terms of Mac marketshare (very likely in the US long before anywhere else).
What then? Do they stagnate in the PC market, which is a huge percentage of Apple's overall revenue, or do they want to continue to be a growth company? I strongly suspect the latter. So okay, in that case... do they then go into lower pricepoints to grab more consumers? Steve seems like he'd rather contract ebola than do that. It goes against so many of his cherished biases.
What's the alternative to that? Biz/enterprise. Yeah, it's generally a price-sensitive market, but not all businesses think the same way. Some have expressed an interest to moving to Macs even now, at current quite-a-lot-higher-than-Dell prices. Steve will likely have to lower prices anyway, no matter what, but he might be able to avoid the 'commodization' trap, while still growing the Mac market strongly.
So, things kinda point towards Apple getting into the business/enterprise market in a big way... someday. We're just not quite there yet.
...
Extremely well said.
The comeback, of course, is that Apple isn't really interested in the business market, "Steve even said so", etc. etc. But I strongly suspect that Steve's comments vis a vis the business market are another one of those things Steve says that's "true, 'til it's not true." Kinda like how no one wants to watch video on an iPod.
Assuming that Apple's Mac marketshare continues to increase like it has, at some point down the road, Apple runs out of well-heeled consumers to sell to... they hit a wall in terms of Mac marketshare (very likely in the US long before anywhere else).
What then? Do they stagnate in the PC market, which is a huge percentage of Apple's overall revenue, or do they want to continue to be a growth company? I strongly suspect the latter. So okay, in that case... do they then go into lower pricepoints to grab more consumers? Steve seems like he'd rather contract ebola than do that. It goes against so many of his cherished biases.
What's the alternative to that? Biz/enterprise. Yeah, it's generally a price-sensitive market, but not all businesses think the same way. Some have expressed an interest to moving to Macs even now, at current quite-a-lot-higher-than-Dell prices. Steve will likely have to lower prices anyway, no matter what, but he might be able to avoid the 'commodization' trap, while still growing the Mac market strongly.
So, things kinda point towards Apple getting into the business/enterprise market in a big way... someday. We're just not quite there yet.
...
This is why Apple is inching back into the market. They are doing things that will appeal to them, and obviously do, without making an all out turnabout.
Apple wants business customers these days, but more on their own terms than the businesses terms. They seem to be more interested in doing this in the level of the OS, rather than at the level of the hardware, though, the MB does seem to have moved in that direction, as have the iMacs, which are also finding favor in business, after business said they really didn't want an all in one. The Mini is doing very well in specialized markets where the computer is not actually being used directly.
So Apple is very much indeed in business, one way or the other.
As the consuer and business markets continue to converge, we'll see more of it.
Also, business does not, as a rule, buy the least expensive machines. I read in ComputerWorld a short while ago, that business buys desktops that are about $1,000, not including the monitor. They buy laptops for about $1,500.
HardMac broke the story that the 'late 2008' MacBook Pro has improved USB 2.0 speed. We posted their link on our Quick Takes but want to "second the motion" by posting our own findings.
Really wish we could have seen some latency tests as well.
Tesing the USB 2.0 on the new Macbooks
Really wish we could have seen some latency tests as well.
Don't forget that a lot of latency problems are OS problems. These are not realtime OS's.
And?
Although Apple officially STILL remains silent on the issue, an issue that has provoked more uproar and for a longer period of time than any other techology decision from the company that I can remember, it has become very clear in my mind that Firewire is DEAD.
I believe Apple is making a tremendous error of judgement.
David Pogue has revealed that he had the opportunity to personally speak to Steve Jobs and question the decision to leave FW off the MacBook.
And?
Although Apple officially STILL remains silent on the issue, an issue that has provoked more uproar and for a longer period of time than any other techology decision from the company that I can remember, it has become very clear in my mind that Firewire is DEAD.
I believe Apple is making a tremendous error of judgement.
Link?
...
So Apple is very much indeed in [the] business [market], one way or the other.
As the consumer and business markets continue to converge, we'll see more of it.
Which makes otwayross' comments on Apple's uncommunicative nature, unpredictable product upgrades, and hardware monopoly quite pertinent. All those things tend to drive business customers away.
Totally agree with your comment about how "Apple wants business customers, but very much on Apple's terms and not on the businesses' terms", though. One of the better summations I've heard.
...
Also, business does not, as a rule, buy the least expensive machines. I read in ComputerWorld a short while ago, that business buys desktops that are about $1,000, not including the monitor. They buy laptops for about $1,500.
It's one of those "it depends" things. I definitely wouldn't label price a non-factor or minor factor in the biz market though.
I used to work at Sony, and I remember when our dept needed some new comps. There was a significant wait before we could get the funds, and while the higher-ups wanted us to get something that "could do the job", it was pretty damn clear that we weren't being handed a blank check.
In the end, we were able to score some pretty decent midrange PC minitowers (thanks for NOT MAKING those btw, Apple, and completely taking yourself out of the running), plus a couple of lower-end iMacs (the iMacs somehow ended up going to the higher-ups... of course.
That wasn't too bad, but during some times our dept was shockingly price-restricted. Like the time when we asked IT for some RAM upgrades to our old, aging desktop PCs (this was before we bought the new comps). They upped us to 1GB, no prob, but when we asked to be upped to 2GB a few months later, it was no dice. And this was *RAM*, for pete's sake.
So, I'd say that businesses can most definitely be price-sensitive, but it comes and goes, depending on how the company is doing and what 'priorities of the month' are coming in from the higher-ups.
If the budget's being squeezed, you're screwed, basically, and have to wait for fatter times to get something decent. And a lot of even that depends on who you know and is dependent on your boss not being a tool.
...
Link?
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/te...nted=2&_r=1&em
"when Apple drops FireWire from its bestselling machine, it's a good bet that other models will follow.)
Last week, on the phone, I got a chance to vent my unhappiness to Steve Jobs himself. I told him about my long-held intention to edit down those 100 tapes, maybe when I'm retired.
I must admit, he gave me quite a wakeup call. He pointed out that in 10 years, there won't be any machines left that can play them.
(He also mentioned that, realistically, the only time people really edit their movies is just after they've shot them. And sure enough: I've been intending to edit my tapes for 15 years now; what makes me think I'll have time to do it in the next 15?)
Mac and video fans may not like it--especially the part about having to buy a new, tapeless camcorder--but the writing is on the wall. Tape is dead; camcorder manufacturers have been saying as much for years now. And Apple is not about to preserve some legacy jack just for the sake of the dwindling MiniDV cult."
"The company points out--accurately, alas--that nobody's buying tape camcorders anymore; people either buy memory-card or hard-drive camcorders, or they just record video on their digital still cameras. All of which connect to a computer by USB."
"you can transfer huge files extremely quickly [with firewire]
Apple says, "You can do the same thing with an Ethernet cable," and that's true. But Target Disk Mode also lets you repair or recover Mac #2 if it won't start up, and there's no replacement for that tactic."
You can use a bootable hard disk or remove the drive and use an enclosure for the last part.
None of this changes the fact that people who currently own firewire devices will have to replace them. Apple should have provided a solution of some sort to allow people to use their devices. Even when they got rid of the floppy, you could buy an external one.
Even if they had something like an Elgato stick that would capture video from a camera using a hardware encoder.
I don't think firewire will be removed from the desktops if there's room for it but from the article above, it looks like Apple don't see a need for it any more. This is the beginning of the end.
It makes sense given that fast data transfer is all that's needed so we should transition to a better format. Apple know that USB 3 is on the way at 4.8Gbps and that's faster than any port we have now, even the newest firewire developments and there's supposed to be a wireless part to it.
There generally aren't firewire mice, scanners, printers, webcams etc. These are mostly USB so continuing with firewire means you always have to have two types of port. With USB3, you have one type for everything. You could even replace ethernet with a USB3 port.
It minimizes redundancy because there will rarely be a port you don't use. People won't say 'well I hardly ever use the firewire/ethernet/whatever port anyway'. If it's all USB3, no port type will go unused. I also think it will be a while before people find 4.8Gbps to be too slow. That is fast enough to fill a 1TB drive in under half an hour.
If it can act as a display output in the same way as displayport, all you'd have on a future Macbook is 4-5 USB3 ports. It could come as early as next year:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780794-7.html
Ideally, Apple would have waited until USB3 was in place before dropping firewire but the redesign had to happen now. Intel have published the spec so it's just a matter of time:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/218886/i...face-spec.html
USB3 could be an addition used to sell the Macbook in 6 months when it will just get a CPU bump. It is the last element in the high performance agenda: fast processing (GPU, multi-core), fast storage (SSD), fast transfer (USB3).
It's one of those "it depends" things. I definitely wouldn't label price a non-factor or minor factor in the biz market though.
I used to work at Sony, and I remember when our dept needed some new comps. There was a significant wait before we could get the funds, and while the higher-ups wanted us to get something that "could do the job", it was pretty damn clear that we weren't being handed a blank check.
In the end, we were able to score some pretty decent midrange PC minitowers (thanks for NOT MAKING those btw, Apple, and completely taking yourself out of the running), plus a couple of lower-end iMacs (the iMacs somehow ended up going to the higher-ups... of course.
That wasn't too bad, but during some times our dept was shockingly price-restricted. Like the time when we asked IT for some RAM upgrades to our old, aging desktop PCs (this was before we bought the new comps). They upped us to 1GB, no prob, but when we asked to be upped to 2GB a few months later, it was no dice. And this was *RAM*, for pete's sake.
So, I'd say that businesses can most definitely be price-sensitive, but it comes and goes, depending on how the company is doing and what 'priorities of the month' are coming in from the higher-ups.
If the budget's being squeezed, you're screwed, basically, and have to wait for fatter times to get something decent. And a lot of even that depends on who you know and is dependent on your boss not being a tool.
...
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
I agree that business will rarely upgrade machines however I don't see what the specific tax troubles are. Any separate parts for upgrades are considered separate items (whether it's RAM or an LCD) and are therefore depreciated separately (from the date of purchase), while service is considered a direct cost and is written off as such.
But if you said that business can rarely be bothered upgrading a machine, then I'd agree with that...
The other thing I don't understand is this attitude that businesses have such deep pockets that cost is not an issue... that may be so in some industries (I'm not sure which ones) but I'm working on a v. large budget project and the IT nazis are very strict with personal limits on most things. I keep asking them why my mail storage is limited to 200 MB
PS my "up-to-date" question earlier was badly expressed... I meant upgrade, as in business want to know that when they invest in an item (in this case computer hardware/software/peripherals) and it requires upgrading, replacement (in a couple of years) or simply additional units sometime sooner, the same product and features will be available. Which is why business will rarely invest in single source items due to lack of competition and certainty of supply.
the fear has been around since 2005
I agree that business will rarely upgrade machines however I don't see what the specific tax troubles are. Any separate parts for upgrades are considered separate items (whether it's RAM or an LCD) and are therefore depreciated separately (from the date of purchase), while service is considered a direct cost and is written off as such.
Unlike machines, memory is rarely allowed to be accounted for as a capital expenditure. It's expensed. That's very different, and accounted for very differently. The tax benefits are much less.
{quote}
But if you said that business can rarely be bothered upgrading a machine, then I'd agree with that...
Yes, that's a big part of it as well. It's very expensive to upgrade machines, mostly from the cost of the time of the employees.
An example can be understood from the expense of lighting. While is only costs about $2.50 for a 4 foot fluorescent tube, it costs over $6 to have a person replace one. While memory is more expensive than lighting, the cost of the personell is much higher as well. It may seem that replacing two DIMMS may cost $50, but it may actually cost $100, once all the factors of time, ordering, traffic, disposal of old chips, packaging etc. are added in. Much of that is not chargable.
The other thing I don't understand is this attitude that businesses have such deep pockets that cost is not an issue... that may be so in some industries (I'm not sure which ones) but I'm working on a v. large budget project and the IT nazis are very strict with personal limits on most things. I keep asking them why my mail storage is limited to 200 MB
You've missed the point here entirely. No one has said that at all. You can't compare a company such as Google, which sells services and receives billions in ad dollars for the services it "gives" away, with the costs a company incurs for the same services, and the much more limited bandwidth is has available. In most companies, IT is a service, not a profit center. Therefor it must account for its budget differently. That's because as a service, it's purely a drain on the company. While it is obviously required, most companies look at it as something they must have, rather than a department they would like to have. It's backoffice, like accounting, which is also a negative budget area, though required.
Particularly when times are tough, companies prefer to cut where marketing and sales are not involved. So, after the 2000 question, IT budgets have been down.
PS my "up-to-date" question earlier was badly expressed... I meant upgrade, as in business want to know that when they invest in an item (in this case computer hardware/software/peripherals) and it requires upgrading, replacement (in a couple of years) or simply additional units sometime sooner, the same product and features will be available. Which is why business will rarely invest in single source items due to lack of competition and certainty of supply.
Well, yes. Often, when companies do their buying budgets, they are on three year plans. One reason why Apple has often been left out of those plans is because they won't do the three year part to part guarantee other manufacturers are willing to do.
Many companies, particularly the larger ones, require that on that three year plan, all the machines they order be EXACTLY the same. Exactly! Part for part. Every cap and resistor be the same, from the same company, even.
They want to know that when they have problems with those machines, as they will, the problems will be predictable, and therefore easily repaired.
Apple doesn't do this. It keeps them out of the bidding process in many companies.
They don't just look at the price.
I didn't say they did. But I did say that price tends to be a major consideration, and I fully stand behind that statement.
They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
Apparently that memo did not get through to our higher-ups... our comp buys averaged in the $1,200 range, and we were told by IT that we were somewhat "lucky" in that we got better comps than most of the teeming masses were afforded.
You might be exactly right about the depro thing, but it doesn't matter if the 'powers that be' are either unaware of the depro advantages or choose to ignore them.
But as your RAM request goes, it goes back to what I always say, business rarely upgrade machines. It puts a monkey wrench in the tax and depreciation plans. The 1Gb might have gotten under the write-off, but not the 2GB.
I honestly got the impression that they really did not have things thought out that far. It seemed to be more just a reaction to how much money was on tap at the time. But on that one, who knows.
...
I didn't say they did. But I did say that price tends to be a major consideration, and I fully stand behind that statement.
I didn't mean for my reply to look as though you said that. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just stating it up front.
Apparently that memo did not get through to our higher-ups... our comp buys averaged in the $1,200 range, and we were told by IT that we were somewhat "lucky" in that we got better comps than most of the teeming masses were afforded.
You might be exactly right about the depro thing, but it doesn't matter if the 'powers that be' are either unaware of the depro advantages or choose to ignore them.
Well, those numbers are just an average. Each companies points will vary somewhat. And as we know, not all people in management are as competent as others.
I honestly got the impression that they really did not have things thought out that far. It seemed to be more just a reaction to how much money was on tap at the time.
...
If a company is really being strained, then that could be a factor. But usually, companies like to work things out over a longer term. Investors like that.
They don't just look at the price. They must consider the depreciation from capital purchases. If they are too low, then depreciation isn't as effective. apparently, $1,500 is about the level where it really kicks in. Below that, they might actually pay more because of the depreciation factor, and how it's figured.
Wow I wish I worked for a company that bought $1,500 computers for everyone!! My first company bought the cheapest IBM business computers (You know the ones that every MB and HD died) for about $600/ea. The last company I worked for bought new Dells recently and I priced them out online and they bought the cheapest rig that they offered, with 1GB of ram and 80GB hard drives for about $750/ea.
Granted I have only worked for 3 corporations thus far but price outweighs depreciation worries because it has to come out of someones revenue and therefore managements bonuses etc. Common it's the "Do more with less" America we live in nowadays!
Wow I wish I worked for a company that bought $1,500 computers for everyone!! My first company bought the cheapest IBM business computers (You know the ones that every MB and HD died) for about $600/ea. The last company I worked for bought new Dells recently and I priced them out online and they bought the cheapest rig that they offered, with 1GB of ram and 80GB hard drives for about $750/ea.
Granted I have only worked for 3 corporations thus far but price outweighs depreciation worries because it has to come out of someones revenue and therefore managements bonuses etc. Common it's the "Do more with less" America we live in nowadays!
Actually, price doesn't overweigh depreciation worries for most companies. The numbers I stated were from articles in Computerworld, who got them from surveying a large number of medium and large corporations.
There will always be outliers, and in a time of stress, as we've been in the past year or so, these nmbers may break towards the lower end, because of concern over current cash positions, debt, etc.
But, overall it's still correct.
Unlike machines, memory is rarely allowed to be accounted for as a capital expenditure. It's expensed. That's very different, and accounted for very differently. The tax benefits are much less.
actually if you look at the US Master Depreciation Guide page 125 you'll find that some computer parts count as "rotable spare parts" which can be depreciated.
So in fact from the tables, if you purchase the parts after the original machine
(and assuming you can justify that it will not be useful after the life of the machine)
you'll get at least the same depreciation rate,
possibly higher if you can use the straight line method (rate = 1/number of years).
Also, according to the guide, computers are generally assumed to be a 5 year asset (see page 93).
Yes, that's a big part of it as well. It's very expensive to upgrade machines, mostly from the cost of the time of the employees.
An example can be understood from the expense of lighting. While is only costs about $2.50 for a 4 foot fluorescent tube, it costs over $6 to have a person replace one. While memory is more expensive than lighting, the cost of the personell is much higher as well. It may seem that replacing two DIMMS may cost $50, but it may actually cost $100, once all the factors of time, ordering, traffic, disposal of old chips, packaging etc. are added in. Much of that is not chargable.
OK but any payment for service invoiced external should be counted as a cost - and as you point out internal IT services are treated as overheads (same thing)
- but yes wasted time by a business owner can't be counted really...
You've missed the point here entirely. No one has said that at all.
Sorry Mel I don't think I have missed the point. Lots of people keep saying
(and I'm not sure it's necessarily you who's proposing this)
"if you've got a business just buy the MBP and depreciate it" as if:
1. all businesses can afford or are willing to get a machine that expensive
2. you could be ahead in terms of depreciation by buying a more expensive item
remember that while you may end up with a bigger tax deduction over the life of a more expensive machine
the non-deducted money is still tied up for the majority of that period
so if you can deduct 17.5% per year over 5 years (just example figures from the tables - not using the straight line method),
then after Year 1 you still have 82.5% of your money tied up, not available, not earning anything.
82.5% of a $1299 MP is 1070
82.5% of a $1999 MBP is 1650
and for some businesses that $580 difference multiplied by X number of machines could be a lot
but yes, if you're just out to get the biggest deduction possible over the life of the machine
you'd buy the most expensive machine you could
Again, you do not get it. Without Target Disk Mode you cannot repair. Full stop. Or else open the case, place the disk elsewhere for Target Disk Mode, waste your time, break something and increase repair costs. How can people be so BLIND!!!??? It just costs 20 cents to implement Firewire!
APPLE: NO FIREWIRE, NO PURCHASE. The decision is yours.
I suggest buying a MBP instead of a MB. I completely agree that Target Disk Mode is a tremendous advantage in Apple laptops, and I use it all the time, but I am not convinced that it is the only solution in the MB. Of course, I admit that I like using my iPod as a portable hard drive so am happiest with a Classic, and hate the touch because I cannot dump things to it from the desktop-- I know, different topic, but I'm all for more ports and USB&Firewire. I'm the guy who actually liked the early iPods having FIrewire, but boy was I wrong and Apple right about making USB the wave of the future--- let's see speedier USB drives.