To the ever increasing numbers of people who are moving to the Mac since Apple "cut" these lines?
Those users are here because Apple is cool and are moving over from cheap Dells and HPs. They don't have exactly stellar needs they'll also leave if Apple isn't cool anymore or if mommy and daddy refuse to spend the extra money in this economy.
Quote:
Apple does what profitable companies do. They cut the "fat". If models aren't selling well enough to be continued, they are removed.
The eMac was selling very well and the PowerMac was a staple of their product lineup. Also, do you consider professional minded users who have been with Apple over a decade to be the fat?
Quote:
I find it interesting that in a report about Dell in the Times the other day, it was said that while it had increased its sales in its consumer computer division, it hasn't made a profit there.
I wonder why?
Razor thin margins. Apple has shown that you can sell a similar computer for much more based on perception. The XPS and professional lines with high margins prop up the consumer and business lines where they make next to nothing.
Quote:
Well, one reason is that it tries to be there for everyone. It has far more models than Apple, in the effort to throw everything out there, and see what sticks.
I remember a few years ago when we were criticizing Creative for taking that approach to music player sales. Collectively, a good number may be sold, but individually, none sell very many, and it's hard to make a generalized profit.
Exactly high many iPods did Apple sell when they offered only one model on one platform with one connector? Things exploded when they started to diversify. Now they have the Shuffle, Nano, classic, touch, and iPhone in a wide array of configurations and price points. Should we cut this down to make things more profitable
Quote:
Apple gets this these days, from the days when THEY were criticized for having too many models.
They will never make everyone happy. But that's impossible anyway. No matter what they do, there will always be those who complain that Apple doesn't make the computer for THEM.
Yeah in like '97 where they had 500 different beige models. Apple found a sweet spot where they did make a computer that everybody was happy with. We weren't happy with the performance of the PowerPCs and inability of IBM/Motorola to create a competitive mobile chip, but we were happy with configuration the lineup.
Quote:
How long have we been complaining about the lack of an xMac?
xMac as Affordable Tower: Late 2005 when they made the PowerMac unaffordable.
xMac as first envisioned (Mac workstation) was realized with the introduction of the MacPro. X= high end professional ala xServe. It unfortunately replaced the Powermac line instead of augmenting it.
Quote:
Yet, Apple thrives.
As a fad based consumer electronics company. Fads don't last and they're already trying to shove the Professional and semi professional users out the door. That doesn't put Apple or Mac OS X in a very good position in a couple of years.
That's the opinion of a few people here who want something Apple doesn't offer.
But the fact that their sales have been going up at several times the PC industries pace, shows that many don't agree with you on this.
So, most people in that situation will want one Mac, but will buy another, because what they are really buying into is the OS, not the hardware.
And even then, the hardware appeals.
Not necessarily. We had a lot of switchers who bought the original iMac and clamshell iBook. Most of them bought a windows machine for their next computer. If you think they people are joining to become part of the Mac community, you're kidding yourself.
They could really care less if they were running, OSX, windows, or linux as long as its perceived as cool and matches their iPhone/iPod. The ones who are repeat buyers are the ones who buy one for the superiority of the platform and software and up until recently the reliability of the hardware. They bought Macs no matter what Apple's image was. These are the ones that Apple risks losing because they're putting all their effort into image and very little into the platform. Apple rarely innovates anymore on the computer side. They're routinely behind on technology where they used to be in the fore front. Its all about making a computer that's a little bit smaller with a glossy screen.
It can't be professional needs. I don't know of pros who lug equipment around who would argue against another pound, and another couple of inches in size.
I get the feeling that when you say "professional", what you mean is "media professional". All of your examples are from that world, anyway.
There are plenty of programmers and managers who want solid, quality laptops but also want them small, low weight and long on battery life.
Raw CPU power, GPU power, color correctness are not huge concerns for this group.
I don't count myself as a pro, but I share those priorities. The 12":s were the last Apple hardware that was designed to fit them.
Incidentally, this year I also bought my first Windows desktop in ~8 years. OS X' value is not infinite, and the gaps Apple has built into its hardware lineup are not small.
Those users are here because Apple is cool and are moving over from cheap Dells and HPs. They don't have exactly stellar needs they'll also leave if Apple isn't cool anymore or if mommy and daddy refuse to spend the extra money in this economy.
You have a very low opinion of new Apple users.
Quote:
The eMac was selling very well and the PowerMac was a staple of their product lineup. Also, do you consider professional minded users who have been with Apple over a decade to be the fat?
The eMac, was criticized heavily the last year. It was in need of being replaced by something newer.
The PowerMac? You're kidding!
Are you one of those cavemen who think Apple should have remained with the PPC, even though it was a losing proposition?
Quote:
Razor thin margins. Apple has shown that you can sell a similar computer for much more based on perception. The XPS and professional lines with high margins prop up the consumer and business lines where they make next to nothing.
I've said many times that their pro lines, and business software and consulting, prop up the losing consumer division. So now you want Apple to emulate that heavily discounted concept that's been dragging Dell down?
What a GOOD idea!
Quote:
Exactly high many iPods did Apple sell when they offered only one model on one platform with one connector? Things exploded when they started to diversify. Now they have the Shuffle, Nano, classic, touch, and iPhone in a wide array of configurations and price points. Should we cut this down to make things more profitable
I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
Quote:
Yeah in like '97 where they had 500 different beige models. Apple found a sweet spot where they did make a computer that everybody was happy with. We weren't happy with the performance of the PowerPCs and inability of IBM/Motorola to create a competitive mobile chip, but we were happy with configuration the lineup.
So, even though you weren't happy about the performance of the Powermac, you're sorry to see it gone?
Quote:
xMac as Affordable Tower: Late 2005 when they made the PowerMac unaffordable.
xMac as first envisioned (Mac workstation) was realized with the introduction of the MacPro. X= high end professional ala xServe. It unfortunately replaced the Powermac line instead of augmenting it.
Forget about crying about the Powermacs. They are dead and gone, and that's good.
But, I was one of the very first to call for a mini tower. I even gave plans to a couple of friends in Apple's engineering management.
Quote:
As a fad based consumer electronics company. Fads don't last and they're already trying to shove the Professional and semi professional users out the door. That doesn't put Apple or Mac OS X in a very good position in a couple of years.
Not necessarily. We had a lot of switchers who bought the original iMac and clamshell iBook. Most of them bought a windows machine for their next computer. If you think they people are joining to become part of the Mac community, you're kidding yourself.
They could really care less if they were running, OSX, windows, or linux as long as its perceived as cool and matches their iPhone/iPod. The ones who are repeat buyers are the ones who buy one for the superiority of the platform and software and up until recently the reliability of the hardware. They bought Macs no matter what Apple's image was. These are the ones that Apple risks losing because they're putting all their effort into image and very little into the platform. Apple rarely innovates anymore on the computer side. They're routinely behind on technology where they used to be in the fore front. Its all about making a computer that's a little bit smaller with a glossy screen.
Again, you're making things up, and don't know what you're talking about.
Do you have any numbers to prove that "most" bought a Windows machine for their next computer, or is this something pulled from your imagination?
Again, you're making things up, and don't know what you're talking about.
Do you have any numbers to prove that "most" bought a Windows machine for their next computer, or is this something pulled from your imagination?
Look at Mac sales and profitability from 2001 to the intel switch. It doesn't take to genius to figure out the switchers didn't stick around. You don't seriously think they didn't buy another computer between the iMac and an intel machine do you?
Look at Mac sales and profitability from 2001 to the intel switch. It doesn't take to genius to figure out the switchers didn't stick around. You don't seriously think they didn't buy another computer between the iMac and an intel machine do you?
I don't know what you're trying to show here.
Apple did pretty well during the switch.
Show the numbers you're trying to discuss. Then we can discuss what happened.
Most of the newer ones haven't given much of a reason for a high opinion.
Quote:
The eMac, was criticized heavily the last year. It was in need of being replaced by something newer.
Because of the G4 chip. Instead of replacing it, they just plain dropped it.
Quote:
The PowerMac? You're kidding!
Are you one of those cavemen who think Apple should have remained with the PPC, even though it was a losing proposition?
You're using Apple's change in naming conventions to twist things here. Let's make things easier here and I'll give you a name conversion list.
PPC: Mac Mini
Intel: Same
PPC: iMac
Intel: same
PPC: eMac
Intel: dropped
PPC: PowerMac
intel: MacPro
PPC: iBook
Intel Macbook
PPC: Powerbook
Intel Macbook Pro.
Quote:
I've said many times that their pro lines, and business software and consulting, prop up the losing consumer division. So now you want Apple to emulate that heavily discounted concept that's been dragging Dell down?
No, I'm saying that Apple is popular and has consistent margins, they're not subject to the same pitfalls as Dell. Apple probably makes as much on Mac Mini (even at the old PPC price points) as Dell does on three inspiron desktops. on the flip side, they make much more money per each workstation than Apple does on a MacPro. But we're not talking margins here, we're talking about products gaps that were previously filled.
[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.[quote]
They sure do now. If you're an entry level buyer, you buy a MacMini. If you're a consumer, you buy an iMac. If you're professional you buy a Mac Pro. Consumers need only dual cores and two DIMM slots, anyone who needs more must need a workstation.
On the laptop side If you want a smaller notebook, you must be a consumer and need a Macbook if you need a larger screen, you must be a professional. These are all black and white choices with no overlap based what Apple and Apple alone thinks you should need.
Quote:
So, even though you weren't happy about the performance of the Powermac, you're sorry to see it gone?
Forget about crying about the Powermacs. They are dead and gone, and that's good.
You're once again using naming conventions to twist things.
There is more to a computer than just a CPU. With a PowerMac line (read Mac Pro) you had had expansion slots, you had multiple drive bays, you had an additional pair of DIMM slots, you could choose your video card, and you could choose your display all for an affordable $1299-$1699. With the iMac now being the only choice Apple makes all those decisions for you and if Apple is wrong, than its just too bad. They don't really care if you're ability to do tasks is diminished. And make no mistake, I did not buy the iMac because I love the elegant simple design. I bought it because the current incarnation of windows sucks and I have so much invested in the Mac platform that it would not be an easy move.
Quote:
But, I was one of the very first to call for a mini tower. I even gave plans to a couple of friends in Apple's engineering management.
And that makes Apple's complete elimination of tower options under $2300 somehow alright? How much do they have to take away before you start to lose faith in them?
Quote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Because I bring a voice who doubts some of Apple's decisions? Who sees a qualitative difference between a switcher and someone who choose to use a Mac because it was (at one time) a better platform? Who sees that Apple is making a lot of decision based on hype and herding that have the potential to significantly hurt its standing with the base?
I'm sorry I got outside the RDF and took advantage of the think part of Think Different. Apparently independent thought isn't tolerated in the Mac platform anymore. It's all about what we can do to serve Apple and Steve Jobs. It has nothing to do with a superior computer to serve your needs. You need to go to windows for that right?
Read the earnings releases and google Q4 2000 when Mac sales started to decline.
I'm trying to show that if you bring people in on hype, they are much more likely to switch back than a Mac user who is here for the platform. You seem to think that once a person owns a Mac it is somehow impossible to switch back.
Truth be told, my next computer is going to another PC, running Win7/Liunx, as Apple isn't offering what I would like in a computer, and pricing themselves out of my budget. Right now (and when I bought it), my Mini was the only headless Mac under $1000, and a similarly priced PC would just destroy it in terms of features and expandability. And no, iLife isn't that amazing, lets not kid ourselves.
I don't even need anything high-end anymore, but give a decent headless desktop, with an i7 Intel desktop CPU, easy to access internals, with big and fast HDs, 4+ GB RAM support, dedicated GPU. and there would be no problem. Price it for $1000-1200.
It just seems like Apple has a great OS, but worse and worse computers to back them up, it only seems to be thinness and glossiness that are important anymore. Apple has a very narrow view of the market, and they know that as long as people need/want to run OSX, they can sell people whatever they want, and they'll accept it and put up with it.
Most of the newer ones haven't given much of a reason for a high opinion.
I see.
Quote:
Because of the G4 chip. Instead of replacing it, they just plain dropped it.
Schools were moving to laptops. Here in NYC, a laptop lab is the preferred method of buying computers for K-12. What they do is have a specially designed cart on which the laptops are kept. The cart is moved to the classrom where the computers are needed. There could be up to 36 laptops per cart. Mostly Macbooks, or similarly priced PC's.
The need for the Education Mac is no longer here. The eMac no longer had a function.
Quote:
You're using Apple's change in naming conventions to twist things here. Let's make things easier here and I'll give you a name conversion list.
PPC: Mac Mini
Intel: Same
PPC: iMac
Intel: same
PPC: eMac
Intel: dropped
PPC: PowerMac
intel: MacPro
PPC: iBook
Intel Macbook
PPC: Powerbook
Intel Macbook Pro.
What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?
Quote:
No, I'm saying that Apple is popular and has consistent margins, they're not subject to the same pitfalls as Dell. Apple probably makes as much on Mac Mini (even at the old PPC price points) as Dell does on three inspiron desktops. on the flip side, they make much more money per each workstation than Apple does on a MacPro. But we're not talking margins here, we're talking about products gaps that were previously filled.
Profit is very important. Apple doesn't have the expensive workstation and server market that Dell does. Neither do they have the business consulting services.
They have to make a proper profit on all their lines. That's the proper way to do it.
If a machines doesn't fit within their targets, they should drop it.
[quote]
[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
Quote:
They sure do now. If you're an entry level buyer, you buy a MacMini. If you're a consumer, you buy an iMac. If you're professional you buy a Mac Pro. Consumers need only dual cores and two DIMM slots, anyone who needs more must need a workstation.
On the laptop side If you want a smaller notebook, you must be a consumer and need a Macbook if you need a larger screen, you must be a professional. These are all black and white choices with no overlap based what Apple and Apple alone thinks you should need.
You mentioned iPods. I didn't. So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.
Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.
High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.
What's your problem here?
Quote:
You're once again using naming conventions to twist things.
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?
Quote:
There is more to a computer than just a CPU. With a PowerMac line (read Mac Pro) you had had expansion slots, you had multiple drive bays, you had an additional pair of DIMM slots, you could choose your video card, and you could choose your display all for an affordable $1299-$1699. With the iMac now being the only choice Apple makes all those decisions for you and if Apple is wrong, than its just too bad. They don't really care if you're ability to do tasks is diminished. And make no mistake, I did not buy the iMac because I love the elegant simple design. I bought it because the current incarnation of windows sucks and I have so much invested in the Mac platform that it would not be an easy move.
First of all, you should stop using the word "had". As far as I can tell, the Mac Pro continues to have all the advantages of the Powermac, except that it's a much better computer.
The Powermac at the $1299 price was gone long ago. The cheapest one was several hundred more than that before the Mac Pro arrived.
You have to take inflation into account as well. Apple moves the price of its machines up and down when new ones replace the old, depending on what they are offering.
Since only a very few ever do more to upgrade their machines than add memory, and most people don't even do that, the iMac is more than enough for most people in that price range.
Quote:
And that makes Apple's complete elimination of tower options under $2300 somehow alright? How much do they have to take away before you start to lose faith in them?
Look at their sales. That's what matters, not theoretical desires.
A company is allowed to decide what products they want to put out. It's up to the potential customer to decide if those products suit them.
So far, Apple seems to be making the right moves. I don't have to agree with all of them.
Quote:
Because I bring a voice who doubts some of Apple's decisions? Who sees a qualitative difference between a switcher and someone who choose to use a Mac because it was (at one time) a better platform? Who sees that Apple is making a lot of decision based on hype and herding that have the potential to significantly hurt its standing with the base?
No. Because you are making assumptions about numbers and thoughts of others that you don't know. You are trying to fit others into your line of thinking.
Quote:
I'm sorry I got outside the RDF and took advantage of the think part of Think Different. Apparently independent thought isn't tolerated in the Mac platform anymore. It's all about what we can do to serve Apple and Steve Jobs. It has nothing to do with a superior computer to serve your needs. You need to go to windows for that right?
The idea about RDF is cute for those who want to think they are special because they are too good to be caught in it. But, few people are taken in by this "RDF" in the first place.
It's narrow thinking to believe that those who agree Apple makes pretty good moves aren't capable of thinking on their own.
I have very good reasons for what I think. You may not agree, but perhaps you are a victim of the "anti-RDF" hmmm?
Read the earnings releases and google Q4 2000 when Mac sales started to decline.
I'm trying to show that if you bring people in on hype, they are much more likely to switch back than a Mac user who is here for the platform. You seem to think that once a person owns a Mac it is somehow impossible to switch back.
That doesn't explain your statements. We know there was an earnings decline then. There were numerous reasons for that. It doesn't mean that most people who had bought a Mac right before went and bought a PC instead.
Right at that time, there was a market crash, and a recession, which took a year to wind up. That little economic difficulty had a lot to do with it.
Apple was also going through a transition to OS X, which was late, and so had people waiting to buy new machines. I suppose you forgot about that as well.
The entire industry was in a slump then.
One main reason was that before 2000, there was the scare about the dating. Remember that most computers just used the last two digits in that year date. Because of that there was massive upgrading all across the industry, even to a certain extent including Macs.
Once the 2000 transition was complete, IT budgets came crashing down, as did the budgets of consumers who had also upgraded.
This is in addition to the stock market crash and the recession.
Every time Apple made a big transition, people held off to wait for the new technology. That's normal. We even tell people here to hold off when we think Apple is about to update machines, though that's minor.
When Apple was moving to intel, the quarter right when the change occurred led to just a 5% increase in sales, from a 30% rise before.
Why? Trepidation over the new machines. The next quarter led to an 11% increase. The next, 20 something percent, and has been higher ever since.
I suppose you could look at that time, and think that massive numbers of people shifted back to PC's, but you would be wrong about that as well.
So, if you're going to try to account for something, know what you're talking about.
Truth be told, my next computer is going to another PC, running Win7/Liunx, as Apple isn't offering what I would like in a computer, and pricing themselves out of my budget. Right now (and when I bought it), my Mini was the only headless Mac under $1000, and a similarly priced PC would just destroy it in terms of features and expandability. And no, iLife isn't that amazing, lets not kid ourselves.
I don't even need anything high-end anymore, but give a decent headless desktop, with an i7 Intel desktop CPU, easy to access internals, with big and fast HDs, 4+ GB RAM support, dedicated GPU. and there would be no problem. Price it for $1000-1200.
It just seems like Apple has a great OS, but worse and worse computers to back them up, it only seems to be thinness and glossiness that are important anymore. Apple has a very narrow view of the market, and they know that as long as people need/want to run OSX, they can sell people whatever they want, and they'll accept it and put up with it.
You're going to have to wait at least 6 months, if not 9 months to get what you want—if you can get it at all.
And for the market iLife is intended, yes, it is that good. You're just not that market.
He gave you explicit examples (hint: consumer laptop - small, pro laptop - large). What's the problem you have in comprehending them?
What's your problem in comprehending my answer?
Are the Macbooks as large as the MacBook Pros?
Quote:
People don't just wake up and want to blow $X on a computer, any computer. Having "a computer for every price" is meaningless.
He mentions the several iPod lines, and then says that there is one computer line. That's clearly wrong.
Look, you don't have to buy a Mac. There is no law requiring that.
Apple offers what they do because most people they think will buy their machines will be happy with the choices. Going by the increase in sales they have had, there's good reason to think they're right.
But if you're expecting a 1,000% increase in sales if these other machines are offered—good luck with that!
Here it is spelled out. Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
Quote:
Apple offers what they do because most people they think will buy their machines will be happy with the choices. Going by the increase in sales they have had, there's good reason to think they're right.
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right. Microsoft can do no wrong either, I guess.
on this forum there are at least 2 ways of looking at the world
1. assuming apple is right and fitting facts to justify every apple decision
2. liking apple but somehow finding the facts not fit all of apple's decisions (or products)
number 1 people quite often shoot at number 2 people, despite a common interest
examples under viewpoint 1.
a. if apple fails it's clearly not apple's fault:
there must have been a recession, a war, a .com bust, a short supply of components
a soviet plot, some illegal activity on the part of microsoft, the chinese or the government etc etc
b. if you find a problem with your apple product it's clearly your fault:
you must have dropped it, you don't know how to use it, you're stupid, you're aggressive
you are pulling a warranty scam, you're a non-believer, you work for microsoft, you need glasses etc etc
and ironically, depsite a number of those with viewpoint 1. having been around
when apple hit rock bottom a while back (for reasons which were obviously not its fault)
they confidently believe that it could never do so again
because they never make mistakes, and can read the market fully...
and clearly if there is any future drop in notebook sales
it wouldn't be anything to do with the latest release - the blame is quite clearly the recession
(which apple has expertly planned for)
summary: all arguments against number 1 viewpoints are futile
(quite simply because you're wrong to even ask that sort of question)
You're doing what he's doing, which is ignoring the entire world, and relying on Apple as your certer point.
Apple make lots of mistakes. no one has acknowledged that more than me.
But, things they do are not always wrong because a few people think so.
And problems they may have can be their fault, but not always.
The problems in the 200o to 2002 period were related to outside forces that they had no control over. If you look at the industry at that time, you would see that.
Or you could just ignore it and live in your own little world.
Here it is spelled out. Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right. Microsoft can do no wrong either, I guess.
This argument got old years ago.
I understood his point. But you don't understand mine.
Mine is that Apple is doing what is working well for them. The Macbook is one of the most popular laptops around. It's small enough for most people.
The fact that Apple doesn't offer a smaller one doesn't mean that they need to do so. Perhaps they do, but we don't know that.
We do know that they won't get into the "cheap and small" category.
They MAY come out with something bigger than an iPhone, but much smaller than a notebook, or they may not.
They did have the 12" Powerbook, but apparently, it wasn't selling that well.
Just because some people want something doesn't mean that it will sell in large enough numbers to be profitable. Remember the cube?
If you have actually read my last few posts, you would see that I don't say that every decision that Apple makes is right.
You don't seem to know much about what I say. Enough people here have called me an Apple hater because of my criticism at time.
Comments
The better selling ones do. In fact, the Macbook might be the only notebook over $1000 without firewire.
Really? You know that for sure? You've checked to see that all the laptops above $,1000 have FW?
Limited and confining to whom?
To the ever increasing numbers of people who are moving to the Mac since Apple "cut" these lines?
Those users are here because Apple is cool and are moving over from cheap Dells and HPs. They don't have exactly stellar needs they'll also leave if Apple isn't cool anymore or if mommy and daddy refuse to spend the extra money in this economy.
Apple does what profitable companies do. They cut the "fat". If models aren't selling well enough to be continued, they are removed.
The eMac was selling very well and the PowerMac was a staple of their product lineup. Also, do you consider professional minded users who have been with Apple over a decade to be the fat?
I find it interesting that in a report about Dell in the Times the other day, it was said that while it had increased its sales in its consumer computer division, it hasn't made a profit there.
I wonder why?
Razor thin margins. Apple has shown that you can sell a similar computer for much more based on perception. The XPS and professional lines with high margins prop up the consumer and business lines where they make next to nothing.
Well, one reason is that it tries to be there for everyone. It has far more models than Apple, in the effort to throw everything out there, and see what sticks.
I remember a few years ago when we were criticizing Creative for taking that approach to music player sales. Collectively, a good number may be sold, but individually, none sell very many, and it's hard to make a generalized profit.
Exactly high many iPods did Apple sell when they offered only one model on one platform with one connector? Things exploded when they started to diversify. Now they have the Shuffle, Nano, classic, touch, and iPhone in a wide array of configurations and price points. Should we cut this down to make things more profitable
Apple gets this these days, from the days when THEY were criticized for having too many models.
They will never make everyone happy. But that's impossible anyway. No matter what they do, there will always be those who complain that Apple doesn't make the computer for THEM.
Yeah in like '97 where they had 500 different beige models. Apple found a sweet spot where they did make a computer that everybody was happy with. We weren't happy with the performance of the PowerPCs and inability of IBM/Motorola to create a competitive mobile chip, but we were happy with configuration the lineup.
How long have we been complaining about the lack of an xMac?
xMac as Affordable Tower: Late 2005 when they made the PowerMac unaffordable.
xMac as first envisioned (Mac workstation) was realized with the introduction of the MacPro. X= high end professional ala xServe. It unfortunately replaced the Powermac line instead of augmenting it.
Yet, Apple thrives.
As a fad based consumer electronics company. Fads don't last and they're already trying to shove the Professional and semi professional users out the door. That doesn't put Apple or Mac OS X in a very good position in a couple of years.
That's the opinion of a few people here who want something Apple doesn't offer.
But the fact that their sales have been going up at several times the PC industries pace, shows that many don't agree with you on this.
So, most people in that situation will want one Mac, but will buy another, because what they are really buying into is the OS, not the hardware.
And even then, the hardware appeals.
Not necessarily. We had a lot of switchers who bought the original iMac and clamshell iBook. Most of them bought a windows machine for their next computer. If you think they people are joining to become part of the Mac community, you're kidding yourself.
They could really care less if they were running, OSX, windows, or linux as long as its perceived as cool and matches their iPhone/iPod. The ones who are repeat buyers are the ones who buy one for the superiority of the platform and software and up until recently the reliability of the hardware. They bought Macs no matter what Apple's image was. These are the ones that Apple risks losing because they're putting all their effort into image and very little into the platform. Apple rarely innovates anymore on the computer side. They're routinely behind on technology where they used to be in the fore front. Its all about making a computer that's a little bit smaller with a glossy screen.
It can't be professional needs. I don't know of pros who lug equipment around who would argue against another pound, and another couple of inches in size.
I get the feeling that when you say "professional", what you mean is "media professional". All of your examples are from that world, anyway.
There are plenty of programmers and managers who want solid, quality laptops but also want them small, low weight and long on battery life.
Raw CPU power, GPU power, color correctness are not huge concerns for this group.
I don't count myself as a pro, but I share those priorities. The 12":s were the last Apple hardware that was designed to fit them.
Incidentally, this year I also bought my first Windows desktop in ~8 years. OS X' value is not infinite, and the gaps Apple has built into its hardware lineup are not small.
Those users are here because Apple is cool and are moving over from cheap Dells and HPs. They don't have exactly stellar needs they'll also leave if Apple isn't cool anymore or if mommy and daddy refuse to spend the extra money in this economy.
You have a very low opinion of new Apple users.
The eMac was selling very well and the PowerMac was a staple of their product lineup. Also, do you consider professional minded users who have been with Apple over a decade to be the fat?
The eMac, was criticized heavily the last year. It was in need of being replaced by something newer.
The PowerMac? You're kidding!
Are you one of those cavemen who think Apple should have remained with the PPC, even though it was a losing proposition?
Razor thin margins. Apple has shown that you can sell a similar computer for much more based on perception. The XPS and professional lines with high margins prop up the consumer and business lines where they make next to nothing.
I've said many times that their pro lines, and business software and consulting, prop up the losing consumer division. So now you want Apple to emulate that heavily discounted concept that's been dragging Dell down?
What a GOOD idea!
Exactly high many iPods did Apple sell when they offered only one model on one platform with one connector? Things exploded when they started to diversify. Now they have the Shuffle, Nano, classic, touch, and iPhone in a wide array of configurations and price points. Should we cut this down to make things more profitable
I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
Yeah in like '97 where they had 500 different beige models. Apple found a sweet spot where they did make a computer that everybody was happy with. We weren't happy with the performance of the PowerPCs and inability of IBM/Motorola to create a competitive mobile chip, but we were happy with configuration the lineup.
So, even though you weren't happy about the performance of the Powermac, you're sorry to see it gone?
xMac as Affordable Tower: Late 2005 when they made the PowerMac unaffordable.
xMac as first envisioned (Mac workstation) was realized with the introduction of the MacPro. X= high end professional ala xServe. It unfortunately replaced the Powermac line instead of augmenting it.
Forget about crying about the Powermacs. They are dead and gone, and that's good.
But, I was one of the very first to call for a mini tower. I even gave plans to a couple of friends in Apple's engineering management.
As a fad based consumer electronics company. Fads don't last and they're already trying to shove the Professional and semi professional users out the door. That doesn't put Apple or Mac OS X in a very good position in a couple of years.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Not necessarily. We had a lot of switchers who bought the original iMac and clamshell iBook. Most of them bought a windows machine for their next computer. If you think they people are joining to become part of the Mac community, you're kidding yourself.
They could really care less if they were running, OSX, windows, or linux as long as its perceived as cool and matches their iPhone/iPod. The ones who are repeat buyers are the ones who buy one for the superiority of the platform and software and up until recently the reliability of the hardware. They bought Macs no matter what Apple's image was. These are the ones that Apple risks losing because they're putting all their effort into image and very little into the platform. Apple rarely innovates anymore on the computer side. They're routinely behind on technology where they used to be in the fore front. Its all about making a computer that's a little bit smaller with a glossy screen.
Again, you're making things up, and don't know what you're talking about.
Do you have any numbers to prove that "most" bought a Windows machine for their next computer, or is this something pulled from your imagination?
Again, you're making things up, and don't know what you're talking about.
Do you have any numbers to prove that "most" bought a Windows machine for their next computer, or is this something pulled from your imagination?
Look at Mac sales and profitability from 2001 to the intel switch. It doesn't take to genius to figure out the switchers didn't stick around. You don't seriously think they didn't buy another computer between the iMac and an intel machine do you?
Look at Mac sales and profitability from 2001 to the intel switch. It doesn't take to genius to figure out the switchers didn't stick around. You don't seriously think they didn't buy another computer between the iMac and an intel machine do you?
I don't know what you're trying to show here.
Apple did pretty well during the switch.
Show the numbers you're trying to discuss. Then we can discuss what happened.
You have a very low opinion of new Apple users.
Most of the newer ones haven't given much of a reason for a high opinion.
The eMac, was criticized heavily the last year. It was in need of being replaced by something newer.
Because of the G4 chip. Instead of replacing it, they just plain dropped it.
The PowerMac? You're kidding!
Are you one of those cavemen who think Apple should have remained with the PPC, even though it was a losing proposition?
You're using Apple's change in naming conventions to twist things here. Let's make things easier here and I'll give you a name conversion list.
PPC: Mac Mini
Intel: Same
PPC: iMac
Intel: same
PPC: eMac
Intel: dropped
PPC: PowerMac
intel: MacPro
PPC: iBook
Intel Macbook
PPC: Powerbook
Intel Macbook Pro.
I've said many times that their pro lines, and business software and consulting, prop up the losing consumer division. So now you want Apple to emulate that heavily discounted concept that's been dragging Dell down?
No, I'm saying that Apple is popular and has consistent margins, they're not subject to the same pitfalls as Dell. Apple probably makes as much on Mac Mini (even at the old PPC price points) as Dell does on three inspiron desktops. on the flip side, they make much more money per each workstation than Apple does on a MacPro. But we're not talking margins here, we're talking about products gaps that were previously filled.
[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.[quote]
They sure do now. If you're an entry level buyer, you buy a MacMini. If you're a consumer, you buy an iMac. If you're professional you buy a Mac Pro. Consumers need only dual cores and two DIMM slots, anyone who needs more must need a workstation.
On the laptop side If you want a smaller notebook, you must be a consumer and need a Macbook if you need a larger screen, you must be a professional. These are all black and white choices with no overlap based what Apple and Apple alone thinks you should need.
So, even though you weren't happy about the performance of the Powermac, you're sorry to see it gone?
Forget about crying about the Powermacs. They are dead and gone, and that's good.
You're once again using naming conventions to twist things.
There is more to a computer than just a CPU. With a PowerMac line (read Mac Pro) you had had expansion slots, you had multiple drive bays, you had an additional pair of DIMM slots, you could choose your video card, and you could choose your display all for an affordable $1299-$1699. With the iMac now being the only choice Apple makes all those decisions for you and if Apple is wrong, than its just too bad. They don't really care if you're ability to do tasks is diminished. And make no mistake, I did not buy the iMac because I love the elegant simple design. I bought it because the current incarnation of windows sucks and I have so much invested in the Mac platform that it would not be an easy move.
But, I was one of the very first to call for a mini tower. I even gave plans to a couple of friends in Apple's engineering management.
And that makes Apple's complete elimination of tower options under $2300 somehow alright? How much do they have to take away before you start to lose faith in them?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Because I bring a voice who doubts some of Apple's decisions? Who sees a qualitative difference between a switcher and someone who choose to use a Mac because it was (at one time) a better platform? Who sees that Apple is making a lot of decision based on hype and herding that have the potential to significantly hurt its standing with the base?
I'm sorry I got outside the RDF and took advantage of the think part of Think Different. Apparently independent thought isn't tolerated in the Mac platform anymore. It's all about what we can do to serve Apple and Steve Jobs. It has nothing to do with a superior computer to serve your needs. You need to go to windows for that right?
I don't know what you're trying to show here.
Apple did pretty well during the switch.
Show the numbers you're trying to discuss. Then we can discuss what happened.
http://www.apple.com/investor/
Read the earnings releases and google Q4 2000 when Mac sales started to decline.
I'm trying to show that if you bring people in on hype, they are much more likely to switch back than a Mac user who is here for the platform. You seem to think that once a person owns a Mac it is somehow impossible to switch back.
I don't even need anything high-end anymore, but give a decent headless desktop, with an i7 Intel desktop CPU, easy to access internals, with big and fast HDs, 4+ GB RAM support, dedicated GPU. and there would be no problem. Price it for $1000-1200.
It just seems like Apple has a great OS, but worse and worse computers to back them up, it only seems to be thinness and glossiness that are important anymore. Apple has a very narrow view of the market, and they know that as long as people need/want to run OSX, they can sell people whatever they want, and they'll accept it and put up with it.
Most of the newer ones haven't given much of a reason for a high opinion.
I see.
Because of the G4 chip. Instead of replacing it, they just plain dropped it.
Schools were moving to laptops. Here in NYC, a laptop lab is the preferred method of buying computers for K-12. What they do is have a specially designed cart on which the laptops are kept. The cart is moved to the classrom where the computers are needed. There could be up to 36 laptops per cart. Mostly Macbooks, or similarly priced PC's.
The need for the Education Mac is no longer here. The eMac no longer had a function.
You're using Apple's change in naming conventions to twist things here. Let's make things easier here and I'll give you a name conversion list.
PPC: Mac Mini
Intel: Same
PPC: iMac
Intel: same
PPC: eMac
Intel: dropped
PPC: PowerMac
intel: MacPro
PPC: iBook
Intel Macbook
PPC: Powerbook
Intel Macbook Pro.
What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?
No, I'm saying that Apple is popular and has consistent margins, they're not subject to the same pitfalls as Dell. Apple probably makes as much on Mac Mini (even at the old PPC price points) as Dell does on three inspiron desktops. on the flip side, they make much more money per each workstation than Apple does on a MacPro. But we're not talking margins here, we're talking about products gaps that were previously filled.
Profit is very important. Apple doesn't have the expensive workstation and server market that Dell does. Neither do they have the business consulting services.
They have to make a proper profit on all their lines. That's the proper way to do it.
If a machines doesn't fit within their targets, they should drop it.
[quote]
[quote]I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
They sure do now. If you're an entry level buyer, you buy a MacMini. If you're a consumer, you buy an iMac. If you're professional you buy a Mac Pro. Consumers need only dual cores and two DIMM slots, anyone who needs more must need a workstation.
On the laptop side If you want a smaller notebook, you must be a consumer and need a Macbook if you need a larger screen, you must be a professional. These are all black and white choices with no overlap based what Apple and Apple alone thinks you should need.
You mentioned iPods. I didn't. So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.
Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.
High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.
What's your problem here?
You're once again using naming conventions to twist things.
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?
There is more to a computer than just a CPU. With a PowerMac line (read Mac Pro) you had had expansion slots, you had multiple drive bays, you had an additional pair of DIMM slots, you could choose your video card, and you could choose your display all for an affordable $1299-$1699. With the iMac now being the only choice Apple makes all those decisions for you and if Apple is wrong, than its just too bad. They don't really care if you're ability to do tasks is diminished. And make no mistake, I did not buy the iMac because I love the elegant simple design. I bought it because the current incarnation of windows sucks and I have so much invested in the Mac platform that it would not be an easy move.
First of all, you should stop using the word "had". As far as I can tell, the Mac Pro continues to have all the advantages of the Powermac, except that it's a much better computer.
The Powermac at the $1299 price was gone long ago. The cheapest one was several hundred more than that before the Mac Pro arrived.
You have to take inflation into account as well. Apple moves the price of its machines up and down when new ones replace the old, depending on what they are offering.
Since only a very few ever do more to upgrade their machines than add memory, and most people don't even do that, the iMac is more than enough for most people in that price range.
And that makes Apple's complete elimination of tower options under $2300 somehow alright? How much do they have to take away before you start to lose faith in them?
Look at their sales. That's what matters, not theoretical desires.
A company is allowed to decide what products they want to put out. It's up to the potential customer to decide if those products suit them.
So far, Apple seems to be making the right moves. I don't have to agree with all of them.
Because I bring a voice who doubts some of Apple's decisions? Who sees a qualitative difference between a switcher and someone who choose to use a Mac because it was (at one time) a better platform? Who sees that Apple is making a lot of decision based on hype and herding that have the potential to significantly hurt its standing with the base?
No. Because you are making assumptions about numbers and thoughts of others that you don't know. You are trying to fit others into your line of thinking.
I'm sorry I got outside the RDF and took advantage of the think part of Think Different. Apparently independent thought isn't tolerated in the Mac platform anymore. It's all about what we can do to serve Apple and Steve Jobs. It has nothing to do with a superior computer to serve your needs. You need to go to windows for that right?
The idea about RDF is cute for those who want to think they are special because they are too good to be caught in it. But, few people are taken in by this "RDF" in the first place.
It's narrow thinking to believe that those who agree Apple makes pretty good moves aren't capable of thinking on their own.
I have very good reasons for what I think. You may not agree, but perhaps you are a victim of the "anti-RDF" hmmm?
http://www.apple.com/investor/
Read the earnings releases and google Q4 2000 when Mac sales started to decline.
I'm trying to show that if you bring people in on hype, they are much more likely to switch back than a Mac user who is here for the platform. You seem to think that once a person owns a Mac it is somehow impossible to switch back.
That doesn't explain your statements. We know there was an earnings decline then. There were numerous reasons for that. It doesn't mean that most people who had bought a Mac right before went and bought a PC instead.
Right at that time, there was a market crash, and a recession, which took a year to wind up. That little economic difficulty had a lot to do with it.
Apple was also going through a transition to OS X, which was late, and so had people waiting to buy new machines. I suppose you forgot about that as well.
The entire industry was in a slump then.
One main reason was that before 2000, there was the scare about the dating. Remember that most computers just used the last two digits in that year date. Because of that there was massive upgrading all across the industry, even to a certain extent including Macs.
Once the 2000 transition was complete, IT budgets came crashing down, as did the budgets of consumers who had also upgraded.
This is in addition to the stock market crash and the recession.
Every time Apple made a big transition, people held off to wait for the new technology. That's normal. We even tell people here to hold off when we think Apple is about to update machines, though that's minor.
When Apple was moving to intel, the quarter right when the change occurred led to just a 5% increase in sales, from a 30% rise before.
Why? Trepidation over the new machines. The next quarter led to an 11% increase. The next, 20 something percent, and has been higher ever since.
I suppose you could look at that time, and think that massive numbers of people shifted back to PC's, but you would be wrong about that as well.
So, if you're going to try to account for something, know what you're talking about.
Truth be told, my next computer is going to another PC, running Win7/Liunx, as Apple isn't offering what I would like in a computer, and pricing themselves out of my budget. Right now (and when I bought it), my Mini was the only headless Mac under $1000, and a similarly priced PC would just destroy it in terms of features and expandability. And no, iLife isn't that amazing, lets not kid ourselves.
I don't even need anything high-end anymore, but give a decent headless desktop, with an i7 Intel desktop CPU, easy to access internals, with big and fast HDs, 4+ GB RAM support, dedicated GPU. and there would be no problem. Price it for $1000-1200.
It just seems like Apple has a great OS, but worse and worse computers to back them up, it only seems to be thinness and glossiness that are important anymore. Apple has a very narrow view of the market, and they know that as long as people need/want to run OSX, they can sell people whatever they want, and they'll accept it and put up with it.
You're going to have to wait at least 6 months, if not 9 months to get what you want—if you can get it at all.
And for the market iLife is intended, yes, it is that good. You're just not that market.
So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.
Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.
High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.
What's your problem here?
He gave you explicit examples (hint: consumer laptop - small, pro laptop - large). What's the problem you have in comprehending them?
People don't just wake up and want to blow $X on a computer, any computer. Having "a computer for every price" is meaningless.
He gave you explicit examples (hint: consumer laptop - small, pro laptop - large). What's the problem you have in comprehending them?
What's your problem in comprehending my answer?
Are the Macbooks as large as the MacBook Pros?
People don't just wake up and want to blow $X on a computer, any computer. Having "a computer for every price" is meaningless.
He mentions the several iPod lines, and then says that there is one computer line. That's clearly wrong.
Look, you don't have to buy a Mac. There is no law requiring that.
Apple offers what they do because most people they think will buy their machines will be happy with the choices. Going by the increase in sales they have had, there's good reason to think they're right.
But if you're expecting a 1,000% increase in sales if these other machines are offered—good luck with that!
He gave you explicit examples (hint: consumer laptop - small, pro laptop - large). What's the problem you have in comprehending them?
People don't just wake up and want to blow $X on a computer, any computer. Having "a computer for every price" is meaningless.
don't stress it
on this forum there are at least 2 ways of looking at the world
1. assuming apple is right and fitting facts to justify every apple decision
2. liking apple but somehow finding the facts not fit all of apple's decisions (or products)
number 1 people quite often shoot at number 2 people, despite a common interest
examples under viewpoint 1.
a. if apple fails it's clearly not apple's fault:
there must have been a recession, a war, a .com bust, a short supply of components
a soviet plot, some illegal activity on the part of microsoft, the chinese or the government etc etc
b. if you find a problem with your apple product it's clearly your fault:
you must have dropped it, you don't know how to use it, you're stupid, you're aggressive
you are pulling a warranty scam, you're a non-believer, you work for microsoft, you need glasses etc etc
and ironically, depsite a number of those with viewpoint 1. having been around
when apple hit rock bottom a while back (for reasons which were obviously not its fault)
they confidently believe that it could never do so again
because they never make mistakes, and can read the market fully...
and clearly if there is any future drop in notebook sales
it wouldn't be anything to do with the latest release - the blame is quite clearly the recession
(which apple has expertly planned for)
summary: all arguments against number 1 viewpoints are futile
(quite simply because you're wrong to even ask that sort of question)
What's your problem in comprehending my answer?
Are the Macbooks as large as the MacBook Pros?
So you *honestly* didn't understand Ben's point?
Here it is spelled out. Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
Apple offers what they do because most people they think will buy their machines will be happy with the choices. Going by the increase in sales they have had, there's good reason to think they're right.
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right. Microsoft can do no wrong either, I guess.
This argument got old years ago.
don't stress it
on this forum there are at least 2 ways of looking at the world
1. assuming apple is right and fitting facts to justify every apple decision
2. liking apple but somehow finding the facts not fit all of apple's decisions (or products)
number 1 people quite often shoot at number 2 people, despite a common interest
examples under viewpoint 1.
a. if apple fails it's clearly not apple's fault:
there must have been a recession, a war, a .com bust, a short supply of components
a soviet plot, some illegal activity on the part of microsoft, the chinese or the government etc etc
b. if you find a problem with your apple product it's clearly your fault:
you must have dropped it, you don't know how to use it, you're stupid, you're aggressive
you are pulling a warranty scam, you're a non-believer, you work for microsoft, you need glasses etc etc
and ironically, depsite a number of those with viewpoint 1. having been around
when apple hit rock bottom a while back (for reasons which were obviously not its fault)
they confidently believe that it could never do so again
because they never make mistakes, and can read the market fully...
and clearly if there is any future drop in notebook sales
it wouldn't be anything to do with the latest release - the blame is quite clearly the recession
(which apple has expertly planned for)
summary: all arguments against number 1 viewpoints are futile
(quite simply because you're wrong to even ask that sort of question)
You're doing what he's doing, which is ignoring the entire world, and relying on Apple as your certer point.
Apple make lots of mistakes. no one has acknowledged that more than me.
But, things they do are not always wrong because a few people think so.
And problems they may have can be their fault, but not always.
The problems in the 200o to 2002 period were related to outside forces that they had no control over. If you look at the industry at that time, you would see that.
Or you could just ignore it and live in your own little world.
So you *honestly* didn't understand Ben's point?
Here it is spelled out. Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right. Microsoft can do no wrong either, I guess.
This argument got old years ago.
I understood his point. But you don't understand mine.
Mine is that Apple is doing what is working well for them. The Macbook is one of the most popular laptops around. It's small enough for most people.
The fact that Apple doesn't offer a smaller one doesn't mean that they need to do so. Perhaps they do, but we don't know that.
We do know that they won't get into the "cheap and small" category.
They MAY come out with something bigger than an iPhone, but much smaller than a notebook, or they may not.
They did have the 12" Powerbook, but apparently, it wasn't selling that well.
Just because some people want something doesn't mean that it will sell in large enough numbers to be profitable. Remember the cube?
If you have actually read my last few posts, you would see that I don't say that every decision that Apple makes is right.
You don't seem to know much about what I say. Enough people here have called me an Apple hater because of my criticism at time.