It comes down to the fact that the computer market is shifting. And I think Apple's product line goes more and more out of sync. Apple needs to adjust as well.
The major shifting trends?
- From desktops to laptops.
- A realisation by many that they don't actually need all that power.
- Huge storage space with easy access for all on the network.
Apple's product mix?
The MacPro is actually well positioned. If professionals buy desktops they want all the power they can get, server parts are welcome. And they don't want to change hardware every 3 months either so conservative buying patters warrant 1 update cycles. Although it's been more than a year now, probably Intel's fault.
The iMac is a problem child IMHO. It uses laptop parts without being a laptop. So you lose the portability for a bigger screen. I can see this being a problem soon and the iMac will have to split in 2 categories:
- a 'mobile desktop' with a much bigger screen, why not a 20" or 22" 'laptop'? If Apple uses wide-screen displays these 'laptops' won't be that deep. At least mobile parts make sense.
And I think there is room for a media/storage server that's also an application/terminal server.
People need huge storage for their movies (purchased or home movies) and photos. There's been talk about Apple entering the home server business.
But what if this home server is also an application server? People could buy a Mac home server and attach as many 'dumb screens' as they want, with each becoming a full-featured 'medium powered' Mac.
Or use your iPodBook to access it when running more power/memory-hungry applications.
Apple wants me to use iTunes for my media. The problem with this is that CD and DVD provide my storage mechanism. They should indeed deal with storage, lightweight serving and networking needs with a nifty box.
The Mac Pro will be fine with the next refresh. I too feel the iMac just isn't differentiating itself enough.
Your thoughts about the dumb terminal dovetail with the rumored Image Boot features of Snow Leopard.
Yes but we're not comparing the right product. HP and Dell are waiting for the same Xeon Nehalem chips that Apple is.
I don't get what you are saying. The iMac is indeed a desktop computer, it wouldn't use a Xeon and neither do Dell and the rest. What I am saying is this: by the time Apple releases a Penryn quad core iMac, the Nehalem parts used by Dell and HP and the rest will be updated well beyond the 3GHz barrier. The iMac will use an outdated Penryn when it is released, but worse all the PC vendors will refresh/will have refreshed their Nehalem-based desktops to be even further ahead of the iMac very quickly, while Apple takes its time to refresh the iMac again.
Quote:
If the iMac hits quad core with Penryn chips I'm happy because Apple can always wait for the next "tock" cycle for Nehalem and jump on the process shrink.
Youre missing the point. First, Nehalem isn't about quad core--Penryn had 4 core parts (not on the same package but the same thing to the average Joe). The i7 doesn't increase core count at all (except save for hyperthreading). The entire Nehalem architecture is about increasing single-threaded performance in situations where Penryn falls down--in some cases it beats the Penryn quad core by 30% due to its on-board memory controller and lack of FSB. I could care less about quad core because I can already get quad core--what I want is better performance in each core.
And the bit about waiting until the "tock" cycle--Westmere isnt due out until Q2 2010, and will debut in desktop variants first--the iMac uses mobile parts. The mobile version of Nehalem, Clarksfield, isn't due out until around late Q3 2009. So by your accounts, it's OK for the iMac to use Penryn until around January 2010 while Gateway has a $1299 Nehalem desktop out now?
You may not be interested but the rest of the world is. Netbooks are selling like hotcakes. And they have better performance than the iPhone--browsing the Web and checking email on an iPhone is a painful experience many times plus the iPhone lacks basic features, so I don't know why anybody would contend a netbook is any worse. At least I can copy & paste and have more than one window open at a time on a netbook.
Comments
It comes down to the fact that the computer market is shifting. And I think Apple's product line goes more and more out of sync. Apple needs to adjust as well.
The major shifting trends?
- From desktops to laptops.
- A realisation by many that they don't actually need all that power.
- Huge storage space with easy access for all on the network.
Apple's product mix?
The MacPro is actually well positioned. If professionals buy desktops they want all the power they can get, server parts are welcome. And they don't want to change hardware every 3 months either so conservative buying patters warrant 1 update cycles. Although it's been more than a year now, probably Intel's fault.
The iMac is a problem child IMHO. It uses laptop parts without being a laptop. So you lose the portability for a bigger screen. I can see this being a problem soon and the iMac will have to split in 2 categories:
- a 'mobile desktop' with a much bigger screen, why not a 20" or 22" 'laptop'? If Apple uses wide-screen displays these 'laptops' won't be that deep. At least mobile parts make sense.
And I think there is room for a media/storage server that's also an application/terminal server.
People need huge storage for their movies (purchased or home movies) and photos. There's been talk about Apple entering the home server business.
But what if this home server is also an application server? People could buy a Mac home server and attach as many 'dumb screens' as they want, with each becoming a full-featured 'medium powered' Mac.
Or use your iPodBook to access it when running more power/memory-hungry applications.
Apple wants me to use iTunes for my media. The problem with this is that CD and DVD provide my storage mechanism. They should indeed deal with storage, lightweight serving and networking needs with a nifty box.
The Mac Pro will be fine with the next refresh. I too feel the iMac just isn't differentiating itself enough.
Your thoughts about the dumb terminal dovetail with the rumored Image Boot features of Snow Leopard.
Yes but we're not comparing the right product. HP and Dell are waiting for the same Xeon Nehalem chips that Apple is.
I don't get what you are saying. The iMac is indeed a desktop computer, it wouldn't use a Xeon and neither do Dell and the rest. What I am saying is this: by the time Apple releases a Penryn quad core iMac, the Nehalem parts used by Dell and HP and the rest will be updated well beyond the 3GHz barrier. The iMac will use an outdated Penryn when it is released, but worse all the PC vendors will refresh/will have refreshed their Nehalem-based desktops to be even further ahead of the iMac very quickly, while Apple takes its time to refresh the iMac again.
If the iMac hits quad core with Penryn chips I'm happy because Apple can always wait for the next "tock" cycle for Nehalem and jump on the process shrink.
Youre missing the point. First, Nehalem isn't about quad core--Penryn had 4 core parts (not on the same package but the same thing to the average Joe). The i7 doesn't increase core count at all (except save for hyperthreading). The entire Nehalem architecture is about increasing single-threaded performance in situations where Penryn falls down--in some cases it beats the Penryn quad core by 30% due to its on-board memory controller and lack of FSB. I could care less about quad core because I can already get quad core--what I want is better performance in each core.
And the bit about waiting until the "tock" cycle--Westmere isnt due out until Q2 2010, and will debut in desktop variants first--the iMac uses mobile parts. The mobile version of Nehalem, Clarksfield, isn't due out until around late Q3 2009. So by your accounts, it's OK for the iMac to use Penryn until around January 2010 while Gateway has a $1299 Nehalem desktop out now?
Netbooks....not interested. Low margin low performance.
You may not be interested but the rest of the world is. Netbooks are selling like hotcakes. And they have better performance than the iPhone--browsing the Web and checking email on an iPhone is a painful experience many times plus the iPhone lacks basic features, so I don't know why anybody would contend a netbook is any worse. At least I can copy & paste and have more than one window open at a time on a netbook.