That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
Interesting in the sense that people think Apple can escape the reality of competition and survive on limited offerings. It is not frankly in Apples best long term interest to focus solely on margins to stay in business. That is not to say that margins are not important to Apple or any company for that matter, just that the lack of the right product can damage a company even more.
In this regard the iMac is quickly becoming the wrong computer to deliver Apples own technology on so margins and price will quikly mean nothing as consummers become aware of it's short comings as a line up. Apple can have whatever margin it wants on iMac but that won't help if nobody buys the product for other reasons. A margin really doesn't exist if you can't move product. Now iMac is doing OK sales wise but I have to believe the backwards nature of it's hardware is impacting sales.
As to things like AIR it is almost the perfect example of a machine whose lack of features makes for low demand. This can be seen in Apples recent price adjustments to AIR and the rather poor resale value of the hardware. The problem of course is that people have certain expectations as to what a laptop should do and how it should perform. If you don't meet those expectations then sales go out the window and with that the realization of your margins. Frankly it is the Cube story all over again.
This is why I see a simple price reduction on iMac as doomed to failure. They machine is quickly moving away from what the majority of potential buyers sees as acceptable computing hardware. Thus this machine is in desparate need of a major overhaul. I use the word overhaul on purpose because a simple update isn't going to do the job. The iMac may be cheaper after this overhaul, but making the current hardware cheaper will do nothing for them. It is simply to late for the generation of hardware involved.
Maybe my view is wrong but there is a thin line between a joke and innovation. Sometimes Apple produces a joke (AIR), sometimes it allows a product to become one (the old Mini). I see the iMac quickly slipping into joke territory with to many non updates to the product line up. Another update that uses nothing more than Core 2 Dual would be a sad development in my opinion and lead to Apple being hated just like it was with the long silence on the old Mini. It is not Apples margins that cause sales problems it is having great concepts that are either poorly implemented or ignored for ages thus present potential buyers with a poor purchasing value equation.
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
This thread was about the IMac line but your point is taken. It is really about the stagnation in Apple product lineup that is hurting the perception people have of Apple hardware.
Quote:
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
The Mac Pro is fine for what it is. Really it is, but what is missing is a true midrange product.
Quote:
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
Well there is nothing that one could call mid range so that is a short discussion! As to the Mini that product seems to suffer from eternal neglect and poor positioning. Even though it got a nice GPU during the last update Apple could not even offer a decent CPU over what was in the previous generation. Not even as a build to order product. While it would not be a substitute for a midrange machine a Mini would interest a lot more people if it simply had a faster clock. I see this as another example of artificial restrictions that Apple puts on many of it's products that truely limits it's success.
I have to agree it is a very big hole, more of an ocean than a pond. I'm not sure the cries come from businesses though, I know many individuals like myself would like to see such a machine. The problem is the performance gap between the IMac / Mini and the Pro. That gap is beyound huge now.
Yes. Complete agreement.
Laptops fine. Though I think we need the Macbook redefining with an even cheaper line in light of the Macbook Pro refresh.
Desktop. It's not a disaster the Mini, iMac and Pro are fine machines in their own way. For compactness the mini seems a swell little machine, the iMac is probably the best AIO out there (I have one...it's a work of art!) and the Pro is state of the art engineering.
None of these fine points or the fact they run 'X' negate criticisms.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
There's no getting away from these facts. Apple could offer alternatives. I think I agree with Dave...a 're-think' on Apple's desktop line is a must. It doesn't necessarily negate the need for the 'Pro' or iMac...but I'd give the mini a long, hard look.
It's obvious where the gaps are. That's what happens when 2/3rds of your desktop line is actually a laptop but without the portability...but a desktop...without the power. Design blunders both.
As for recent 'thin' margins on the mini story. Laughable. Apple's only got themselves to blame for the design cul-de-sac their desktop line is in.
Yes. We're talking about the same company that makes state of the art OS, Phone and Laptops. How can they have such oversights with their desktop line? It's not PPC days...Apple has access to powerful desktop parts, cheaper parts and they COULD pass those onto the Apple consumer in a nicely designed box.
Yeah. They may not want to. Or think they need to. (Oh look, I can state the obvious...) But they were wrong on the Macbook, firewire and the price. And to get sales back on track they had to pony up and rethink.
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
This thread was about the IMac line but your point is taken. It is really about the stagnation in Apple product lineup that is hurting the perception people have of Apple hardware.
Quote:
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
The Mac Pro is fine for what it is. Really it is, but what is missing is a true midrange product.
Quote:
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
Well there is nothing that one could call mid range so that is a short discussion! As to the Mini that product seems to suffer from eternal neglect and poor positioning. Even though it got a nice GPU during the last update Apple could not even offer a decent CPU over what was in the previous generation. Not even as a build to order product. While it would not be a substitute for a midrange machine a Mini would interest a lot more people if it simply had a faster clock. I see this as another example of artificial restrictions that Apple puts on many of it's products that truely limits it's success.
Agree. Though, I have to say the iMac gets really hot with what's in there at the moment! Still, that's not my problem. Apple are the cutting edge designers. Apparently.
We could still do with a mid-range product taking advantage of the Nehalem desktop and decent gpus out there in abundance.
Just hop on over to overclockers.co.uk and see how out of touch the Apple desktop line is.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
1) This makes no sense on so many levelss. There is no Mac notebook that costs the same as the Mini and there is clear reason why Apple sells the Mini without the keyboard, mouse and monitor.
2) There are no Mac notebooks with 20” and 24” inch displays, 3.5” HDD and other non-notebook-grade components. It’s an AIO, it shouldn’t need explaining.It either fits your needs or it doesn’t.
3) Again you are comparing two very different machines. Can you honestly say that your $500 machine is designed for professional level work? Lets stick with consumer-grade machines for consumers and professional grade machines for professionals and prosumers.
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies. The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well. I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out. Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
It seems Apple is bound to undermine their own sales with arbitrary delivery schedules. This is one area where Jobs should be hands off.
I'm surprised I'm the only one to be thinking about the xMac upon hearing this news. Give us an xMac already, Apple. It isn't too hard.
Maybe not the only one thinking about an xMac, but first to comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Headless mac with performance equal to imac, no monitor and no laptop parts, small case (doesn't have to be miniscule, just much smaller the the Mac Pro), expandable to at least 8 gigs RAM, keyboard and mouse optional, user accessible guts.
And the beat goes on, and on, and on. Yes, an xMac would solve both the gaining market share and protect margins better than both the Mac mini and iMac, will Apple make one, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple is attentive to laptops because currently there are still margins there. Which is fading fast and you'll see Apple laptops become more and more niche...like the iMac and Mini are on the desktop. The loss of the "MacBook" lineup may be temporary or it's the start of the laptop lineup looking like the desktop one.
MB Air = Mini
MB Pro = Mac Pro (high end laptops only)
??? = iMac (consumer grade laptop)
What will be the mobile iMac? I'm guessing some kind of future tablet that is different enough from a normal laptop to command 30+% margins and immune to direct comparisons to commodity laptops from HP or Lenovo.
AIOs, SFF and workstations are the desktop segments where there are still margins. Which is why Apple has only these kinds of desktops.
Apple (or anyone) has limited ability in selling high margin towers and nearly no economies of scale (vs someone like HP) there unlike their current lineup which, aside from the Mac Pro, is a whole boatload of laptops in various configurations.
The line up plays to Apple's strengths, mitigates some of Apple's weaknesses in terms of volume and works very well with the strategy of going after the 20% of the market that generates 80% of the profit.
If I understand you, Apple will end up with niche markets in all but the iPhone and iPods. Not a good situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes. Complete agreement.
Laptops fine. Though I think we need the Macbook redefining with an even cheaper line in light of the Macbook Pro refresh.
Desktop. It's not a disaster the Mini, iMac and Pro are fine machines in their own way. For compactness the mini seems a swell little machine, the iMac is probably the best AIO out there (I have one...it's a work of art!) and the Pro is state of the art engineering.
None of these fine points or the fact they run 'X' negate criticisms.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
There's no getting away from these facts. Apple could offer alternatives. I think I agree with Dave...a 're-think' on Apple's desktop line is a must. It doesn't necessarily negate the need for the 'Pro' or iMac...but I'd give the mini a long, hard look.
It's obvious where the gaps are. That's what happens when 2/3rds of your desktop line is actually a laptop but without the portability...but a desktop...without the power. Design blunders both.
As for recent 'thin' margins on the mini story. Laughable. Apple's only got themselves to blame for the design cul-de-sac their desktop line is in.
Yes. We're talking about the same company that makes state of the art OS, Phone and Laptops. How can they have such oversights with their desktop line? It's not PPC days...Apple has access to powerful desktop parts, cheaper parts and they COULD pass those onto the Apple consumer in a nicely designed box.
Yeah. They may not want to. Or think they need to. (Oh look, I can state the obvious...) But they were wrong on the Macbook, firewire and the price. And to get sales back on track they had to pony up and rethink.
1. Trying to please all desktop customers and only appealing to a fraction of them.
2. Uneven backlighting
3. Too much gloss
4. 50 step process (including removing the entire LCD panel) to replace the hard drive
5. Dual core computer at a quad core price
6. High repair rate
If Apple is planning price cuts then I expect none of the problems to be addressed. If so they can continue to wait for any money from me. I would much rather pay the current prices and get the issues dealt with.
The backlighting problem would be solved by using the panel from the 24" Cinema Display, but that would probably increase costs. However it would reduce power consumption and free up valuable space inside the case making it far more likely that hotter running CPUs/GPUs could be offered. That could solve the dual core/price problem and thus make the iMac appeal to a wider audience. Many hotter, faster chips cost less than the low power ones Apple uses so that could offset the cost of the LED backlit display.
The issue of gloss also needs to be addressed. I'm actually shocked that no company has come out with a "picture frame" for the iMac so people affected by the gloss could rip off the front sheet of glass without having to look at exposed screws, etc. Of course the LCD panel itself is glossy, but glare isn't as much of a problem with the outer glass removed. I have pre-schoolers so I need to be worried about small hands, sometimes wielding pens or other "weapons", touching my computer so a sheet of museum glass would be best for me. Unfortunately that stuff is thick, heavy and expensive.
Of course by the time Apple fixes all the problems with the iMac I'll probably be in an assisted living complex for the elderly.
1. Trying to please all desktop customers and only appealing to a fraction of them.
A very small fraction of them if you ask me. It is not like I don't like the iMac but a little user configurability would be nice. For example room for an extra Mass Storage device would be nice.
Quote:
2. Uneven backlighting
Haven't seen this myself but then again I use a MBP.
Quote:
3. Too much gloss
I'm not convinced that the majority of people would agree with you here.
Quote:
4. 50 step process (including removing the entire LCD panel) to replace the hard drive
Well Apple vastly improved the Mac Book Pros in this regards so there is always hope. Some parts on a PC really should be user serviceable so maybe if Apple could find a way to provide easy access to at least the RAM and secondary storage we would all be happier. It would be a compromise but any improvement over the current situation would be a win.
As a side note frankly I'm a bit baffled by some of the tear down pics I've seen of the latest iMacs. It looks like Apple went out of its way to make things like the PC boards excessively complex. Laptops and machines like these need new standards for storage peripherals too, Apple needs to move to Solid State storage on PC cards. This one little change would lead to much better hardware packaging.
Quote:
5. Dual core computer at a quad core price
I'm not even sure why they bothered with the last update to the iMacs. They certainly didn't think to hard about the processor.
Quote:
6. High repair rate
This actually surprises me as I've not heard that this is an issue. On the contrary I was under the impression that iMac where rather reliable. Do you have any more information.
Quote:
If Apple is planning price cuts then I expect none of the problems to be addressed. If so they can continue to wait for any money from me. I would much rather pay the current prices and get the issues dealt with.
Yep the price really isn't the issue it is what you get for it. One of the reasons I went for the MBP is that cost wise there wasn't much difference for approximately the same performance.
Quote:
The backlighting problem would be solved by using the panel from the 24" Cinema Display, but that would probably increase costs.
I'm not worried about the cost of the high end models. Give us the right value and they will sell. What Apple needs to do is to get back to having a value machine in the 17 to 20 inch range, then people will have options as to how to spend their money. The problem is of course the difference in quality are obvious if a low end model with a cheaper screen is sitting next to a tricked out model. It would be interesting to see if Apple would have any success with a low end iMac, all the complaining aside in this forum I'm not convinced that people will buy.
Quote:
However it would reduce power consumption and free up valuable space inside the case making it far more likely that hotter running CPUs/GPUs could be offered. That could solve the dual core/price problem and thus make the iMac appeal to a wider audience. Many hotter, faster chips cost less than the low power ones Apple uses so that could offset the cost of the LED backlit display.
Intel has or had a series of chips targeted right at the small form factor market, if they don't do the trick a 55 watt chip is certainly a possibility. Not to mention that AMD probably has better choices for this profile machine.
Quote:
The issue of gloss also needs to be addressed. I'm actually shocked that no company has come out with a "picture frame" for the iMac so people affected by the gloss could rip off the front sheet of glass without having to look at exposed screws, etc.
I'm not shocked at all. You have to have a market for such products and i'M not convinced that all the noise we here in this forum represents the public perception at large. Beside there are all sorts of generic anti glare systems out there if it is really a problem.
Quote:
Of course the LCD panel itself is glossy, but glare isn't as much of a problem with the outer glass removed. I have pre-schoolers so I need to be worried about small hands, sometimes wielding pens or other "weapons", touching my computer so a sheet of museum glass would be best for me. Unfortunately that stuff is thick, heavy and expensive.
You could always go to your local glass supplier and get a custom cut sheet with a treated surface to reduce glare. You shouldn't need anything more than tempered sheet the same thickness as what is in the Mac now.
Quote:
Of course by the time Apple fixes all the problems with the iMac I'll probably be in an assisted living complex for the elderly.
By that time we will have an Apple embedded in our brains. You won't need a display, instead it will be wired directly into your visual cortex as a third eye.
In any event it is likely this discussion will go on for at least another two to three months. The question is will Apple be able to re-bake the desktop line up in such a way that it really innovates? Frankly I think not, they seem to have stagnated and need a new master at the helm of the desktop products division.
Interesting in the sense that people think Apple can escape the reality of competition and survive on limited offerings.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
Quote:
It is not frankly in Apples best long term interest to focus solely on margins to stay in business.
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
Quote:
That is not to say that margins are not important to Apple or any company for that matter, just that the lack of the right product can damage a company even more.
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
Quote:
In this regard the iMac is quickly becoming the wrong computer to deliver Apples own technology on so margins and price will quikly mean nothing as consummers become aware of it's short comings as a line up.
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Quote:
Apple can have whatever margin it wants on iMac but that won't help if nobody buys the product for other reasons. A margin really doesn't exist if you can't move product. Now iMac is doing OK sales wise but I have to believe the backwards nature of it's hardware is impacting sales.
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
Quote:
As to things like AIR it is almost the perfect example of a machine whose lack of features makes for low demand.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
Quote:
This can be seen in Apples recent price adjustments to AIR and the rather poor resale value of the hardware. The problem of course is that people have certain expectations as to what a laptop should do and how it should perform. If you don't meet those expectations then sales go out the window and with that the realization of your margins. Frankly it is the Cube story all over again.
Yep the Cube, Apple's epic failure from 2001 which became the Mini. I think the Air will do just fine as an executive laptop/uber netbook. No huge volume but great for ASPs and margins.
Quote:
This is why I see a simple price reduction on iMac as doomed to failure. They machine is quickly moving away from what the majority of potential buyers sees as acceptable computing hardware. Thus this machine is in desparate need of a major overhaul. I use the word overhaul on purpose because a simple update isn't going to do the job. The iMac may be cheaper after this overhaul, but making the current hardware cheaper will do nothing for them. It is simply to late for the generation of hardware involved.
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
Quote:
Maybe my view is wrong but there is a thin line between a joke and innovation. Sometimes Apple produces a joke (AIR), sometimes it allows a product to become one (the old Mini). I see the iMac quickly slipping into joke territory with to many non updates to the product line up.
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Quote:
Another update that uses nothing more than Core 2 Dual would be a sad development in my opinion and lead to Apple being hated just like it was with the long silence on the old Mini. It is not Apples margins that cause sales problems it is having great concepts that are either poorly implemented or ignored for ages thus present potential buyers with a poor purchasing value equation.
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
I'm not even sure why they bothered with the last update to the iMacs. They certainly didn't think to hard about the processor.
Right, like they had a whole lot of choices there.
Quote:
Yep the price really isn't the issue it is what you get for it. One of the reasons I went for the MBP is that cost wise there wasn't much difference for approximately the same performance.
And gee...that's exactly what Apple wanted you to do too.
Quote:
I'm not worried about the cost of the high end models. Give us the right value and they will sell. What Apple needs to do is to get back to having a value machine in the 17 to 20 inch range, then people will have options as to how to spend their money.
Get a mini. That's the value machine in Apple's line up.
Quote:
Intel has or had a series of chips targeted right at the small form factor market, if they don't do the trick a 55 watt chip is certainly a possibility. Not to mention that AMD probably has better choices for this profile machine.
And you're bitching about performance now. Put a Turion 64-x2 in there instead and see what happens.
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
The article is about the iMac and the majority of Mac users buy them. Next time, read the article, especially the title.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
Yep the Cube, Apple's epic failure from 2001 which became the Mini. I think the Air will do just fine as an executive laptop/uber netbook. No huge volume but great for ASPs and margins.
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
Funny, but I can agree with you on this entire post.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Considering the condition Apple was in at the time trimmng the product line up was the right thing to do. It is not like they had a choice, but do you reallly think they wanted to drop Newton and some of the other products?
Quote:
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
The problem with your vision is that you are not taking into account current realities. One issue is that Mac OS/X has much wider acceptance in the computing community which means the user community will have broader hardware needs. Apple needs a broader hardware base for it's customers to more fully leverage SL and other Mac OS/X technologies.
Quote:
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
Who is saying anything like that. We all want Apple to be profitable and successful. What we are saying is that Apples current line up isn't suitable for many users needs. It is a different world than it was even five years ago much less ten. Besides a truly modern iMac and a larger headless Mac isn't going to kill Apple it will make their offerngs stronger.
Quote:
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer. Thus it is difficult for many potential customers to justify the current hardware offerings. To put it simply Apple is missing out on a lot of customers.
Quote:
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Well obviously yes or people wouldn't be complaining about iMac performance in this thread. In anyevent I don't know how you expect people to take you seriously with the statement above. In the context of this thread, talk about i7 is talk about performance if you don't think that is important to people then I really don't know what to say.
Quote:
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
That doesn't change my opinion that AIR is nothing but junk.
Quote:
Yep the Cube, Apple's epic failure from 2001 which became the Mini. I think the Air will do just fine as an executive laptop/uber netbook. No huge volume but great for ASPs and margins.
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition. In any event margins are not everything, if you don't have the volume to cover development and engineering costs the product isn't successful. It is a great mistake to believe fat margins solve all of your problems from the business standpoint. Alienate your cutomers with poorly designed hardware or grossly over priced hardware and your sales go south. It's foolish to not believe this was an issue with Apples quick redesign of the MBPs released at WWDC. If people think they are getting screwed by by petty design choices, for a generation of hardware, they will not buy.
Quote:
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
If we get them in the iMac which is not a given. As to consummer needs yes they will be to slow for some. I'm not sure why so many have low expectations of computer performance. If iMac does get to i7 performance levels it isn't like this will be state of the art performance when it arrives as the core has been available for a year now.
Quote:
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Quote:
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
Actually it has been poorly tended too. This whole thread makes that point pretty obvious. They whole point is that Intels mobile lineup hasn't been implemented in a way that has hept up with what a PC could be thus iMac isn't at all what it could be.
So I don't see how anybody can call iMac an up to date modern computer.
Quote:
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
Justified gnashing if this pans out like that. Ideally we will get the 32nm shrink before 2010. Apple customers though have the right and should be more demanding with respect to what Apple offers for sale. Apple can skip quads in the next rev but people really should be up in arms if they do. You may accept Apple holding back and putting artificial limitations on it's hardware but some of us are tired of that.
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition.
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Dave
Clearly the mini did not replace the Cube directly. Considering how much of a failure the Cube was, I hardly think Apple would have been anxious to release a product that was in any way, shape or form, connected with that device from a marketing perspective.
But it's impossible to ignore the fact that the Cube and mini are very much variations on the same theme. An incredibly small but capable enough desktop computer with a distinctive form factor, slot-loading optical drive, etc.
As for where Apple is headed with the mini, now that the laptops are an attractive alternative, considering a small price difference, and they intend to do something similar with the iMac, if the mini soldiers on with no price or packaging changes, you have to know that Apple in getting ready to phase out the mini, something that has long been rumoured.
I don't know that there is, however, similar ambiguity, regarding the place the iMac has in Apple's line-up. That machine has been getting upgrades at a reasonable rate and apparently is soon to be made more attractive from a value perspective. The iMac is alive and well, at least as well as can be expected considering desktop sales are slipping. The mini, on the other hand, has a less secure place in the Apple scheme of things. In fact, had the economy not faltered, I imagine Apple might have considered pulling the plug. They updated it, yes, but it was a modest update, pretty much the minimum that could have been expected. That suggests that eliminating the mini really was being considered. But for Apple to drop it's least expensive computer just when the economy went south would have looked bad. So they pulled off a modest refresh and have kept the low-cost option in the mix, for now.
Considering the condition Apple was in at the time trimmng the product line up was the right thing to do. It is not like they had a choice, but do you reallly think they wanted to drop Newton and some of the other products?
Given that Jobs deliberately axed the Newton...yes.
Quote:
The problem with your vision is that you are not taking into account current realities. One issue is that Mac OS/X has much wider acceptance in the computing community which means the user community will have broader hardware needs. Apple needs a broader hardware base for it's customers to more fully leverage SL and other Mac OS/X technologies.
Apple US Market Share in 1995: 11.1%
Apple US Market Share in 2009 (Q2): 7.4%
Of course, Apple market share tanked from 96-99.
The entire lineup is fully SL and OS/X capable.
Quote:
Who is saying anything like that. We all want Apple to be profitable and successful. What we are saying is that Apples current line up isn't suitable for many users needs. It is a different world than it was even five years ago much less ten. Besides a truly modern iMac and a larger headless Mac isn't going to kill Apple it will make their offerngs stronger.
A headless mac would likely significantly cannibalize iMac sales and result in lower ASPs and therefore lower Apple profitability. But this has been hashed and rehased in the various xMac threads.
Quote:
No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer. Thus it is difficult for many potential customers to justify the current hardware offerings. To put it simply Apple is missing out on a lot of customers.
Name anything in OS/X that my current gen mini cannot do.
And there is no proof that Apple is missing out on a lot of customers. First you have to show that many more folks value OSX enough to pay a significant premium over HP for the same thing running Windows.
If you can't show that then all you're doing is reducing the price for folks that would have bought a mac anyway.
Quote:
Well obviously yes or people wouldn't be complaining about iMac performance in this thread. In anyevent I don't know how you expect people to take you seriously with the statement above. In the context of this thread, talk about i7 is talk about performance if you don't think that is important to people then I really don't know what to say.
First you have to show that the folks complaining are average consumers and not prosumers. But really, do you really think the iMac isn't snappy when running iTunes, iLife and Safari?
Second, you continue to ignore that the iMacs will be nehalem later this year and will have comparable performance to i7. Slower yes, but not horridly so.
Quote:
That doesn't change my opinion that AIR is nothing but junk.
Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt anyone could change it.
Quote:
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition. In any event margins are not everything, if you don't have the volume to cover development and engineering costs the product isn't successful.
At 300-700K desktop sales per qtr Apple has the volume to cover development. Another fact you ignore.
Quote:
It is a great mistake to believe fat margins solve all of your problems from the business standpoint. Alienate your cutomers with poorly designed hardware or grossly over priced hardware and your sales go south.
That would be a concern if Apple made poorly designed hardware. Or even grossly over priced them when a new rev comes out. Right now, even with the speed bump, Apple really is waiting on Nehalem for a real update.
Quote:
It's foolish to not believe this was an issue with Apples quick redesign of the MBPs released at WWDC. If people think they are getting screwed by by petty design choices, for a generation of hardware, they will not buy.
Yes, apple on the fly redesigned the MBPs to all have integrated batteries which is a significant design change just for WWDC.
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
Quote:
If we get them in the iMac which is not a given. As to consummer needs yes they will be to slow for some. I'm not sure why so many have low expectations of computer performance. If iMac does get to i7 performance levels it isn't like this will be state of the art performance when it arrives as the core has been available for a year now.
Nehalem in the iMac is a given. Jeez. Whatever the late 2009 Nehalem iMacs will be, "slow" wont the be likely adjective.
Quote:
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Well it probably won't get nehalem and it probably will be around a long time.
Quote:
Actually it has been poorly tended too. This whole thread makes that point pretty obvious. They whole point is that Intels mobile lineup hasn't been implemented in a way that has hept up with what a PC could be thus iMac isn't at all what it could be.
So I don't see how anybody can call iMac an up to date modern computer.
It's as up to date as all the other AIOs waiting for mobile nehalem parts. Likewise there's nothing backward about any of Apple's notebook line.
The only thing Apple hasn't done is use the quad penryns likely from too much heat.
Quote:
Justified gnashing if this pans out like that. Ideally we will get the 32nm shrink before 2010. Apple customers though have the right and should be more demanding with respect to what Apple offers for sale. Apple can skip quads in the next rev but people really should be up in arms if they do. You may accept Apple holding back and putting artificial limitations on it's hardware but some of us are tired of that.
Dave
Ideally, they'd have released in 2000Q1. That sure didn't happen but it isn't like Apple can do THAT much about Intel's release schedule.
Besides, yammering on a forum does nothing.
I suggest you put words into action and stop buying these horribly designed and maintained Apple products that you're so tired of.
Given that Jobs deliberately axed the Newton...yes.
Yes but it was a business decision just like trimming the Mac lineup was. The goal was get back to profitability. Many seem to think that Newton was aced because Jobs hated it, I'm of the opinion he had no choice.
Quote:
Apple US Market Share in 1995: 11.1%
Apple US Market Share in 2009 (Q2): 7.4%
Of course, Apple market share tanked from 96-99.
Much of that due to Apples issues with operating systems at the time. Between the uncertainty of the companies survival and it's flailing about with OS development market share was certain to slid. The point is Apple could regain that market share faster if they had a more acceptable hardware line up. I'm not even sure how this is debatable anymore.
Quote:
The entire lineup is fully SL and OS/X capable.
That all depends upon what you mean by SL capable. I just don't see C2D as coming any where near being optimal for SL. Run it yeah, but fully exploit it's feature I really doubt it. It is basically the samething with the 9400m based machines which only have 16 engines in them. Yeah the 9400M will work with SL but will the experience be anything to write home about, especially when GPU processing has been shown to significantly impact far more powerful GPUs.
So yeah todays Macs can run SL just like a 4 cylinder VW engine can power a ten wheel dump truck. The question is how long would you be happy with that sort of performance when the rest of the trucking world is running circles around you.
Quote:
A headless mac would likely significantly cannibalize iMac sales and result in lower ASPs and therefore lower Apple profitability. But this has been hashed and rehased in the various xMac threads.
I've seen nothing that supports this arguement! A properly designed and marketed xMac would have the same margins as anyother Apple product thus being as profitable.
[/quote]
Name anything in OS/X that my current gen mini cannot do.
[/quote]
Address 32GB of memory? I'm not sure what the point in your question is though, this thread isn't about what your Mini can eventually do. Rather this thread is about moving Apples rather poorly performing iMacs to a somewhat state of the art performance level.
It is about an update we all know is coming. The problem is what will that update look like.
Quote:
And there is no proof that Apple is missing out on a lot of customers. First you have to show that many more folks value OSX enough to pay a significant premium over HP for the same thing running Windows.
The proof is pretty obvious, Apples desktop line is suffering big time with respect to it's own laptops. You can't really deny this as Apples numbers have been faitlrly clear here. Plus you focus to much on this so called significant Premium over the Dells. First the Apple tax isn't that significant and second an upgradeable machine lowers the impact of that tax significantly.
Note too that a more salable machine can also be an iMac along with the mythical xMac. Produce an iMac with two or more user accessible drive bays and access to the RAM slots and you will dramatically increase interest I'm the iMac. Right now the iMac is close to being a totally closed machine to anybody with less than a well equiped shop. The new MBPs shows that Apple can design easily maintained equipment.
Quote:
If you can't show that then all you're doing is reducing the price for folks that would have bought a mac anyway.
Apple is haveing issues with their desktop machines and it is directly related to the line up of hardware they currently have. There is little sense in even arguing the point.
Quote:
First you have to show that the folks complaining are average consumers and not prosumers. But really, do you really think the iMac isn't snappy when running iTunes, iLife and Safari?
Actually it makes little difference.
As to the issue of Snappy it certainly can have moments of lag and poor performance. You have to realize though that there is more to a home users life than Safari. Oh by the way slap a little Flash into a web site and even Safari starts to really lag. You could say that is a flash problem but you also can't deny that faster hardware would help.
Quote:
Second, you continue to ignore that the iMacs will be nehalem later this year and will have comparable performance to i7. Slower yes, but not horridly so.
nope, what I'm saying is that I don't know that to be the case. Nor do I know what GPU hardware they will be supporting. On top of that I'm saying that Apple made a big mistake in not introducing a quad core at the last iMac update. The point being that you will need quad core to really leverage SL when it comes out.
Quote:
Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt anyone could change it.
True but I'm not completely bullheaded even though the last girlfriend said so. The one that could change my mind is Apple. You see I'm not disgusted with AIR the idea but rather AIR the implementation. Address it's significant shortcomings and I might take interest.
For example one issue is the wired Ethernet port or lack there of. A very important feature for those that travel. You may say that is strange why not use WiFi when traveling. To which I would respond reliability, availability and speed. A wired Internet connection is sometimes the better choice when traveling.
That is just one of a few small details that leave me convulsing when thinking about AIR.
Quote:
At 300-700K desktop sales per qtr Apple has the volume to cover development. Another fact you ignore.
Spread over three product lines? It isn't being ignored by me that is for sure and probably isn't being ignored by the fianacial community. If Apple has 15 engineers assigned to desktops and the average $80,000 a year that is $300,000 a quarter right there. Fifeteen is likely a very low number and doesn't even include support staff and marketting. Plus we haven't even discussed that margin Apple loves so much. So in your worst case one dollar of every desktop goes to support those fifeteen engineers in this hypothetical case. The reality is like far worst as the whole department has to be supported on those sales.
People often wonder why the iMac and the Pro go for so long without fancy case upgrades and the like. The answer is pretty simple the sales are not there to pay for major bi-annual updates to the whole product. I have to wonder if anybody on the outside knows what the true engineering burden is for each desktop Mac. Not so much $$$$ but the head count required to maintain the desktop line up. I'm pretty much convinced that it is more than the fifeteen for this example but is it hundreds or more?
Quote:
That would be a concern if Apple made poorly designed hardware. Or even grossly over priced them when a new rev comes out. Right now, even with the speed bump, Apple really is waiting on Nehalem for a real update.
Apple has produced some really bad hardware in the past do that is always a possibility. I do not however see the iMacs as bad hardware, what I see is underpowered hardware that really isn't suitable for Apples new OS update which will be here shortly. That is what makes them bad purchases.
Quote:
Yes, apple on the fly redesigned the MBPs to all have integrated batteries which is a significant design change just for WWDC.
Which just highlights that Apple could have a major iMac overhaul in mind too. Maybe even Mini. I just wonder if the MBP update demonstrates a new willingness on Apples part to put heavy engineering effort into the desktops. It is an area that needs lots of investment.
Quote:
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
don't smoke here at all! So what was it that caused this comment anyways?
Quote:
Nehalem in the iMac is a given. Jeez. Whatever the late 2009 Nehalem iMacs will be, "slow" wont the be likely adjective.
Nothing is a given right now. As to fast that is a very interesting discussion as they will certainly be faster than the old machines but will they be fast enough to fill that big gulf that would be the midrange? This is the thing Apple needs to fill this gap with something, I'd even settle for an iMac if it was properly human seviceable and added internal drive bays.
Quote:
Well it probably won't get nehalem and it probably will be around a long time.
I'd expect Nehalam by early 2010. Not something with an especially fast clock but something to take advantage of the higher integration. Frankly Nehalam is almost ideal for Mini and could actually lead to a lower cost device. Apple might not use it the way Intel intended but I could see that happening.
Quote:
It's as up to date as all the other AIOs waiting for mobile nehalem parts. Likewise there's nothing backward about any of Apple's notebook line.
I have to disagree as there is a whole line up of small form factor chips that are not used on iMac. It may be close to up to date as far as mobile parts go but it certainly isn't the chip for supporting SL. It is a stopgap measure. A poor one at that based on performance, longevity and cost.
[quote]
The only thing Apple hasn't done is use the quad penryns likely from too much heat.
[/quite]
it is a desktop computer, if they can't manage the thermal load then I have to wonder what is up at Apple.
Quote:
Ideally, they'd have released in 2000Q1. That sure didn't happen but it isn't like Apple can do THAT much about Intel's release schedule.
Besides, yammering on a forum does nothing.
on the contrary it does look lik yammering does help Apple to see the light. This probably combined with more reasoned complaints to Apple itself. Some of the things corrected with the new Mab Book Pro releases seem to indicate a responsiveness from Apple we have not seen lately. I'm taliking details like support for more RAM, Firewire and some of the other lesser features that seem to address user complaints.
Quote:
I suggest you put words into action and stop buying these horribly designed and maintained Apple products that you're so tired of.
Well I have! That is why I went with a Mac Book Pro over a year ago. It is also why many are holding off purchases hoping that Apple can get a more reasonably configured machine out the door. Apple has been milking both the iMac and the Mini for couple of years now so it is no wonder that sales have lagged. The issues of serviceability and performance aren't even remotely new with regards to these models so I'm not sure why people are surprised when others here lobby for significant refinements or more modern approaches.
Comments
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
In this regard the iMac is quickly becoming the wrong computer to deliver Apples own technology on so margins and price will quikly mean nothing as consummers become aware of it's short comings as a line up. Apple can have whatever margin it wants on iMac but that won't help if nobody buys the product for other reasons. A margin really doesn't exist if you can't move product. Now iMac is doing OK sales wise but I have to believe the backwards nature of it's hardware is impacting sales.
As to things like AIR it is almost the perfect example of a machine whose lack of features makes for low demand. This can be seen in Apples recent price adjustments to AIR and the rather poor resale value of the hardware. The problem of course is that people have certain expectations as to what a laptop should do and how it should perform. If you don't meet those expectations then sales go out the window and with that the realization of your margins. Frankly it is the Cube story all over again.
This is why I see a simple price reduction on iMac as doomed to failure. They machine is quickly moving away from what the majority of potential buyers sees as acceptable computing hardware. Thus this machine is in desparate need of a major overhaul. I use the word overhaul on purpose because a simple update isn't going to do the job. The iMac may be cheaper after this overhaul, but making the current hardware cheaper will do nothing for them. It is simply to late for the generation of hardware involved.
Maybe my view is wrong but there is a thin line between a joke and innovation. Sometimes Apple produces a joke (AIR), sometimes it allows a product to become one (the old Mini). I see the iMac quickly slipping into joke territory with to many non updates to the product line up. Another update that uses nothing more than Core 2 Dual would be a sad development in my opinion and lead to Apple being hated just like it was with the long silence on the old Mini. It is not Apples margins that cause sales problems it is having great concepts that are either poorly implemented or ignored for ages thus present potential buyers with a poor purchasing value equation.
Dave
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
This thread was about the IMac line but your point is taken. It is really about the stagnation in Apple product lineup that is hurting the perception people have of Apple hardware.
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
The Mac Pro is fine for what it is. Really it is, but what is missing is a true midrange product.
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
Well there is nothing that one could call mid range so that is a short discussion! As to the Mini that product seems to suffer from eternal neglect and poor positioning. Even though it got a nice GPU during the last update Apple could not even offer a decent CPU over what was in the previous generation. Not even as a build to order product. While it would not be a substitute for a midrange machine a Mini would interest a lot more people if it simply had a faster clock. I see this as another example of artificial restrictions that Apple puts on many of it's products that truely limits it's success.
Dave
I have to agree it is a very big hole, more of an ocean than a pond. I'm not sure the cries come from businesses though, I know many individuals like myself would like to see such a machine. The problem is the performance gap between the IMac / Mini and the Pro. That gap is beyound huge now.
Yes. Complete agreement.
Laptops fine. Though I think we need the Macbook redefining with an even cheaper line in light of the Macbook Pro refresh.
Desktop. It's not a disaster the Mini, iMac and Pro are fine machines in their own way. For compactness the mini seems a swell little machine, the iMac is probably the best AIO out there (I have one...it's a work of art!) and the Pro is state of the art engineering.
None of these fine points or the fact they run 'X' negate criticisms.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
There's no getting away from these facts. Apple could offer alternatives. I think I agree with Dave...a 're-think' on Apple's desktop line is a must. It doesn't necessarily negate the need for the 'Pro' or iMac...but I'd give the mini a long, hard look.
It's obvious where the gaps are. That's what happens when 2/3rds of your desktop line is actually a laptop but without the portability...but a desktop...without the power. Design blunders both.
As for recent 'thin' margins on the mini story. Laughable. Apple's only got themselves to blame for the design cul-de-sac their desktop line is in.
Yes. We're talking about the same company that makes state of the art OS, Phone and Laptops. How can they have such oversights with their desktop line? It's not PPC days...Apple has access to powerful desktop parts, cheaper parts and they COULD pass those onto the Apple consumer in a nicely designed box.
Yeah. They may not want to. Or think they need to. (Oh look, I can state the obvious...) But they were wrong on the Macbook, firewire and the price. And to get sales back on track they had to pony up and rethink.
Guess they do care about marketshare afterall.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by minderbinder
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
This thread was about the IMac line but your point is taken. It is really about the stagnation in Apple product lineup that is hurting the perception people have of Apple hardware.
Quote:
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
The Mac Pro is fine for what it is. Really it is, but what is missing is a true midrange product.
Quote:
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
Well there is nothing that one could call mid range so that is a short discussion! As to the Mini that product seems to suffer from eternal neglect and poor positioning. Even though it got a nice GPU during the last update Apple could not even offer a decent CPU over what was in the previous generation. Not even as a build to order product. While it would not be a substitute for a midrange machine a Mini would interest a lot more people if it simply had a faster clock. I see this as another example of artificial restrictions that Apple puts on many of it's products that truely limits it's success.
Agree. Though, I have to say the iMac gets really hot with what's in there at the moment! Still, that's not my problem. Apple are the cutting edge designers. Apparently.
We could still do with a mid-range product taking advantage of the Nehalem desktop and decent gpus out there in abundance.
Just hop on over to overclockers.co.uk and see how out of touch the Apple desktop line is.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
1) This makes no sense on so many levelss. There is no Mac notebook that costs the same as the Mini and there is clear reason why Apple sells the Mini without the keyboard, mouse and monitor.
2) There are no Mac notebooks with 20” and 24” inch displays, 3.5” HDD and other non-notebook-grade components. It’s an AIO, it shouldn’t need explaining.It either fits your needs or it doesn’t.
3) Again you are comparing two very different machines. Can you honestly say that your $500 machine is designed for professional level work? Lets stick with consumer-grade machines for consumers and professional grade machines for professionals and prosumers.
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies. The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well. I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out. Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
It seems Apple is bound to undermine their own sales with arbitrary delivery schedules. This is one area where Jobs should be hands off.
I'm surprised I'm the only one to be thinking about the xMac upon hearing this news. Give us an xMac already, Apple. It isn't too hard.
Maybe not the only one thinking about an xMac, but first to comment.
Headless mac with performance equal to imac, no monitor and no laptop parts, small case (doesn't have to be miniscule, just much smaller the the Mac Pro), expandable to at least 8 gigs RAM, keyboard and mouse optional, user accessible guts.
And the beat goes on, and on, and on. Yes, an xMac would solve both the gaining market share and protect margins better than both the Mac mini and iMac, will Apple make one, no.
Apple is attentive to laptops because currently there are still margins there. Which is fading fast and you'll see Apple laptops become more and more niche...like the iMac and Mini are on the desktop. The loss of the "MacBook" lineup may be temporary or it's the start of the laptop lineup looking like the desktop one.
MB Air = Mini
MB Pro = Mac Pro (high end laptops only)
??? = iMac (consumer grade laptop)
What will be the mobile iMac? I'm guessing some kind of future tablet that is different enough from a normal laptop to command 30+% margins and immune to direct comparisons to commodity laptops from HP or Lenovo.
AIOs, SFF and workstations are the desktop segments where there are still margins. Which is why Apple has only these kinds of desktops.
Apple (or anyone) has limited ability in selling high margin towers and nearly no economies of scale (vs someone like HP) there unlike their current lineup which, aside from the Mac Pro, is a whole boatload of laptops in various configurations.
The line up plays to Apple's strengths, mitigates some of Apple's weaknesses in terms of volume and works very well with the strategy of going after the 20% of the market that generates 80% of the profit.
If I understand you, Apple will end up with niche markets in all but the iPhone and iPods. Not a good situation.
Yes. Complete agreement.
Laptops fine. Though I think we need the Macbook redefining with an even cheaper line in light of the Macbook Pro refresh.
Desktop. It's not a disaster the Mini, iMac and Pro are fine machines in their own way. For compactness the mini seems a swell little machine, the iMac is probably the best AIO out there (I have one...it's a work of art!) and the Pro is state of the art engineering.
None of these fine points or the fact they run 'X' negate criticisms.
1. The mini has no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Why not just buy a PC laptop for the same money? Or stretch to the Macbook plastic? ie expensive for what it is. And you could get quite a decent PC desktop for the same money, more feature complete that could stomp it re: performance. Or certainly by the time you factor in the mouse, k/b and monitor? A better value PC is there for the taking. Laptop hardware in a little box. Should be wayyyyyyyyy cheaper.
2. iMac. Laptop hardware in a 'not as slim as a laptop' enclosure. So why bother? No quadcore though the big screen is nice. It's a giant 'laptop' with a big screen and no portability.
3. Mac Pro. Performance that meets or beats the entry quadcore can be had for half the price of less with a much better gpu as stand and more VRAM (upto 1 gig or 2!) Eh. And why does it cost £1899 to get a quad core when the PC industry has them in £500 desktops?
There's no getting away from these facts. Apple could offer alternatives. I think I agree with Dave...a 're-think' on Apple's desktop line is a must. It doesn't necessarily negate the need for the 'Pro' or iMac...but I'd give the mini a long, hard look.
It's obvious where the gaps are. That's what happens when 2/3rds of your desktop line is actually a laptop but without the portability...but a desktop...without the power. Design blunders both.
As for recent 'thin' margins on the mini story. Laughable. Apple's only got themselves to blame for the design cul-de-sac their desktop line is in.
Yes. We're talking about the same company that makes state of the art OS, Phone and Laptops. How can they have such oversights with their desktop line? It's not PPC days...Apple has access to powerful desktop parts, cheaper parts and they COULD pass those onto the Apple consumer in a nicely designed box.
Yeah. They may not want to. Or think they need to. (Oh look, I can state the obvious...) But they were wrong on the Macbook, firewire and the price. And to get sales back on track they had to pony up and rethink.
Guess they do care about marketshare afterall.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well said, to bad Apple isn't listening.
1. Trying to please all desktop customers and only appealing to a fraction of them.
2. Uneven backlighting
3. Too much gloss
4. 50 step process (including removing the entire LCD panel) to replace the hard drive
5. Dual core computer at a quad core price
6. High repair rate
If Apple is planning price cuts then I expect none of the problems to be addressed. If so they can continue to wait for any money from me. I would much rather pay the current prices and get the issues dealt with.
The backlighting problem would be solved by using the panel from the 24" Cinema Display, but that would probably increase costs. However it would reduce power consumption and free up valuable space inside the case making it far more likely that hotter running CPUs/GPUs could be offered. That could solve the dual core/price problem and thus make the iMac appeal to a wider audience. Many hotter, faster chips cost less than the low power ones Apple uses so that could offset the cost of the LED backlit display.
The issue of gloss also needs to be addressed. I'm actually shocked that no company has come out with a "picture frame" for the iMac so people affected by the gloss could rip off the front sheet of glass without having to look at exposed screws, etc. Of course the LCD panel itself is glossy, but glare isn't as much of a problem with the outer glass removed. I have pre-schoolers so I need to be worried about small hands, sometimes wielding pens or other "weapons", touching my computer so a sheet of museum glass would be best for me. Unfortunately that stuff is thick, heavy and expensive.
Of course by the time Apple fixes all the problems with the iMac I'll probably be in an assisted living complex for the elderly.
Problems with the current iMac:
1. Trying to please all desktop customers and only appealing to a fraction of them.
A very small fraction of them if you ask me. It is not like I don't like the iMac but a little user configurability would be nice. For example room for an extra Mass Storage device would be nice.
2. Uneven backlighting
Haven't seen this myself but then again I use a MBP.
3. Too much gloss
I'm not convinced that the majority of people would agree with you here.
4. 50 step process (including removing the entire LCD panel) to replace the hard drive
Well Apple vastly improved the Mac Book Pros in this regards so there is always hope. Some parts on a PC really should be user serviceable so maybe if Apple could find a way to provide easy access to at least the RAM and secondary storage we would all be happier. It would be a compromise but any improvement over the current situation would be a win.
As a side note frankly I'm a bit baffled by some of the tear down pics I've seen of the latest iMacs. It looks like Apple went out of its way to make things like the PC boards excessively complex. Laptops and machines like these need new standards for storage peripherals too, Apple needs to move to Solid State storage on PC cards. This one little change would lead to much better hardware packaging.
5. Dual core computer at a quad core price
I'm not even sure why they bothered with the last update to the iMacs. They certainly didn't think to hard about the processor.
6. High repair rate
This actually surprises me as I've not heard that this is an issue. On the contrary I was under the impression that iMac where rather reliable. Do you have any more information.
If Apple is planning price cuts then I expect none of the problems to be addressed. If so they can continue to wait for any money from me. I would much rather pay the current prices and get the issues dealt with.
Yep the price really isn't the issue it is what you get for it. One of the reasons I went for the MBP is that cost wise there wasn't much difference for approximately the same performance.
The backlighting problem would be solved by using the panel from the 24" Cinema Display, but that would probably increase costs.
I'm not worried about the cost of the high end models. Give us the right value and they will sell. What Apple needs to do is to get back to having a value machine in the 17 to 20 inch range, then people will have options as to how to spend their money. The problem is of course the difference in quality are obvious if a low end model with a cheaper screen is sitting next to a tricked out model. It would be interesting to see if Apple would have any success with a low end iMac, all the complaining aside in this forum I'm not convinced that people will buy.
However it would reduce power consumption and free up valuable space inside the case making it far more likely that hotter running CPUs/GPUs could be offered. That could solve the dual core/price problem and thus make the iMac appeal to a wider audience. Many hotter, faster chips cost less than the low power ones Apple uses so that could offset the cost of the LED backlit display.
Intel has or had a series of chips targeted right at the small form factor market, if they don't do the trick a 55 watt chip is certainly a possibility. Not to mention that AMD probably has better choices for this profile machine.
The issue of gloss also needs to be addressed. I'm actually shocked that no company has come out with a "picture frame" for the iMac so people affected by the gloss could rip off the front sheet of glass without having to look at exposed screws, etc.
I'm not shocked at all. You have to have a market for such products and i'M not convinced that all the noise we here in this forum represents the public perception at large. Beside there are all sorts of generic anti glare systems out there if it is really a problem.
Of course the LCD panel itself is glossy, but glare isn't as much of a problem with the outer glass removed. I have pre-schoolers so I need to be worried about small hands, sometimes wielding pens or other "weapons", touching my computer so a sheet of museum glass would be best for me. Unfortunately that stuff is thick, heavy and expensive.
You could always go to your local glass supplier and get a custom cut sheet with a treated surface to reduce glare. You shouldn't need anything more than tempered sheet the same thickness as what is in the Mac now.
Of course by the time Apple fixes all the problems with the iMac I'll probably be in an assisted living complex for the elderly.
By that time we will have an Apple embedded in our brains. You won't need a display, instead it will be wired directly into your visual cortex as a third eye.
In any event it is likely this discussion will go on for at least another two to three months. The question is will Apple be able to re-bake the desktop line up in such a way that it really innovates? Frankly I think not, they seem to have stagnated and need a new master at the helm of the desktop products division.
Dave
Interesting in the sense that people think Apple can escape the reality of competition and survive on limited offerings.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
It is not frankly in Apples best long term interest to focus solely on margins to stay in business.
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
That is not to say that margins are not important to Apple or any company for that matter, just that the lack of the right product can damage a company even more.
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
In this regard the iMac is quickly becoming the wrong computer to deliver Apples own technology on so margins and price will quikly mean nothing as consummers become aware of it's short comings as a line up.
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Apple can have whatever margin it wants on iMac but that won't help if nobody buys the product for other reasons. A margin really doesn't exist if you can't move product. Now iMac is doing OK sales wise but I have to believe the backwards nature of it's hardware is impacting sales.
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
As to things like AIR it is almost the perfect example of a machine whose lack of features makes for low demand.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
This can be seen in Apples recent price adjustments to AIR and the rather poor resale value of the hardware. The problem of course is that people have certain expectations as to what a laptop should do and how it should perform. If you don't meet those expectations then sales go out the window and with that the realization of your margins. Frankly it is the Cube story all over again.
This is why I see a simple price reduction on iMac as doomed to failure. They machine is quickly moving away from what the majority of potential buyers sees as acceptable computing hardware. Thus this machine is in desparate need of a major overhaul. I use the word overhaul on purpose because a simple update isn't going to do the job. The iMac may be cheaper after this overhaul, but making the current hardware cheaper will do nothing for them. It is simply to late for the generation of hardware involved.
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
Maybe my view is wrong but there is a thin line between a joke and innovation. Sometimes Apple produces a joke (AIR), sometimes it allows a product to become one (the old Mini). I see the iMac quickly slipping into joke territory with to many non updates to the product line up.
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Another update that uses nothing more than Core 2 Dual would be a sad development in my opinion and lead to Apple being hated just like it was with the long silence on the old Mini. It is not Apples margins that cause sales problems it is having great concepts that are either poorly implemented or ignored for ages thus present potential buyers with a poor purchasing value equation.
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
Just hop on over to overclockers.co.uk and see how out of touch the Apple desktop line is.
That is not the average computer user. Frankly, Apple is far more in touch with the average user than anyone that frequents and OC site.
A very small fraction of them if you ask me.
i think they are still moving 500K units per qtr.
I'm not even sure why they bothered with the last update to the iMacs. They certainly didn't think to hard about the processor.
Right, like they had a whole lot of choices there.
Yep the price really isn't the issue it is what you get for it. One of the reasons I went for the MBP is that cost wise there wasn't much difference for approximately the same performance.
And gee...that's exactly what Apple wanted you to do too.
I'm not worried about the cost of the high end models. Give us the right value and they will sell. What Apple needs to do is to get back to having a value machine in the 17 to 20 inch range, then people will have options as to how to spend their money.
Get a mini. That's the value machine in Apple's line up.
Intel has or had a series of chips targeted right at the small form factor market, if they don't do the trick a 55 watt chip is certainly a possibility. Not to mention that AMD probably has better choices for this profile machine.
That's nice, but many users don't care at all about the iMac.
What about the mac pro which had a BIG price increase and a big drop in specs at the same price? Especially knowing that for four core machines the i7 is a much cheaper option with comparable performance, but apple isn't using it.
And what about the low to mid end of the headless line? Looking at the desktops, the iMac looks like the least of their problems.
The article is about the iMac and the majority of Mac users buy them. Next time, read the article, especially the title.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
Funny, but I can agree with you on this entire post.
Yes, because Apple has no track record of surviving on limited offerings. By moving to limited offerings they are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Considering the condition Apple was in at the time trimmng the product line up was the right thing to do. It is not like they had a choice, but do you reallly think they wanted to drop Newton and some of the other products?
Why in 1999 they had moved from a gazillion models in 97 to iMac, Powermac, PowerBook and iBook and have been going downhill since.
Oh wait, which scenario isn't based on reality?
The problem with your vision is that you are not taking into account current realities. One issue is that Mac OS/X has much wider acceptance in the computing community which means the user community will have broader hardware needs. Apple needs a broader hardware base for it's customers to more fully leverage SL and other Mac OS/X technologies.
Yes, because moving from an emphasis on market share to margins ten years ago Apple has been an epic failure.
Who is saying anything like that. We all want Apple to be profitable and successful. What we are saying is that Apples current line up isn't suitable for many users needs. It is a different world than it was even five years ago much less ten. Besides a truly modern iMac and a larger headless Mac isn't going to kill Apple it will make their offerngs stronger.
Apple has CLEARLY damaged their company by not offering you an xMac.
No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer. Thus it is difficult for many potential customers to justify the current hardware offerings. To put it simply Apple is missing out on a lot of customers.
Right, because the average user is now pushing beyond the computing power provided by the mobile C2D in the iMac.
Well obviously yes or people wouldn't be complaining about iMac performance in this thread. In anyevent I don't know how you expect people to take you seriously with the statement above. In the context of this thread, talk about i7 is talk about performance if you don't think that is important to people then I really don't know what to say.
Translating into more Apple notebook sales with higher ASPs and therefore more profits.
Given the original price of the Air it was always going to be a low volume item. It's Apple's netbook at a premium price. There sure as heck not that many Sony TT buyers either. At $1799 the Air is a good trade off against the TT ($1999)...trading price and performance vs blu ray and expansion.
That doesn't change my opinion that AIR is nothing but junk.
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition. In any event margins are not everything, if you don't have the volume to cover development and engineering costs the product isn't successful. It is a great mistake to believe fat margins solve all of your problems from the business standpoint. Alienate your cutomers with poorly designed hardware or grossly over priced hardware and your sales go south. It's foolish to not believe this was an issue with Apples quick redesign of the MBPs released at WWDC. If people think they are getting screwed by by petty design choices, for a generation of hardware, they will not buy.
Yes, because by moving to dual and quad core Nehalem in the next rev they will be woefully too slow to deal with consumer needs.
If we get them in the iMac which is not a given. As to consummer needs yes they will be to slow for some. I'm not sure why so many have low expectations of computer performance. If iMac does get to i7 performance levels it isn't like this will be state of the art performance when it arrives as the core has been available for a year now.
Yes, because Apple has no plans to update the iMac to Intel's new chips this fall. Right now the gap between the mini and iMac are the smallest they ever will be so right now the iMac is a poor value in comparison to the Mini. That will change in the next rev.
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Yep, Apple has been poorly implementing and ignoring it's line up for ages now...especially the iMac. Which in the last three years has seen 3 revs, each using Intel's latest offerings and a design change to boot.
Actually it has been poorly tended too. This whole thread makes that point pretty obvious. They whole point is that Intels mobile lineup hasn't been implemented in a way that has hept up with what a PC could be thus iMac isn't at all what it could be.
So I don't see how anybody can call iMac an up to date modern computer.
The current iMac is a poor purchasing value right now because it's waiting for it's next rev. Which will happen as soon as Intel releases the mobile Nehalems in qty...although I doubt we'll see quad iMacs until the 32nm shrink in 2010 (Lynnfield). I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth about that too.
Justified gnashing if this pans out like that. Ideally we will get the 32nm shrink before 2010. Apple customers though have the right and should be more demanding with respect to what Apple offers for sale. Apple can skip quads in the next rev but people really should be up in arms if they do. You may accept Apple holding back and putting artificial limitations on it's hardware but some of us are tired of that.
Dave
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition.
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Dave
Clearly the mini did not replace the Cube directly. Considering how much of a failure the Cube was, I hardly think Apple would have been anxious to release a product that was in any way, shape or form, connected with that device from a marketing perspective.
But it's impossible to ignore the fact that the Cube and mini are very much variations on the same theme. An incredibly small but capable enough desktop computer with a distinctive form factor, slot-loading optical drive, etc.
As for where Apple is headed with the mini, now that the laptops are an attractive alternative, considering a small price difference, and they intend to do something similar with the iMac, if the mini soldiers on with no price or packaging changes, you have to know that Apple in getting ready to phase out the mini, something that has long been rumoured.
I don't know that there is, however, similar ambiguity, regarding the place the iMac has in Apple's line-up. That machine has been getting upgrades at a reasonable rate and apparently is soon to be made more attractive from a value perspective. The iMac is alive and well, at least as well as can be expected considering desktop sales are slipping. The mini, on the other hand, has a less secure place in the Apple scheme of things. In fact, had the economy not faltered, I imagine Apple might have considered pulling the plug. They updated it, yes, but it was a modest update, pretty much the minimum that could have been expected. That suggests that eliminating the mini really was being considered. But for Apple to drop it's least expensive computer just when the economy went south would have looked bad. So they pulled off a modest refresh and have kept the low-cost option in the mix, for now.
Considering the condition Apple was in at the time trimmng the product line up was the right thing to do. It is not like they had a choice, but do you reallly think they wanted to drop Newton and some of the other products?
Given that Jobs deliberately axed the Newton...yes.
The problem with your vision is that you are not taking into account current realities. One issue is that Mac OS/X has much wider acceptance in the computing community which means the user community will have broader hardware needs. Apple needs a broader hardware base for it's customers to more fully leverage SL and other Mac OS/X technologies.
Apple US Market Share in 1995: 11.1%
Apple US Market Share in 2009 (Q2): 7.4%
Of course, Apple market share tanked from 96-99.
The entire lineup is fully SL and OS/X capable.
Who is saying anything like that. We all want Apple to be profitable and successful. What we are saying is that Apples current line up isn't suitable for many users needs. It is a different world than it was even five years ago much less ten. Besides a truly modern iMac and a larger headless Mac isn't going to kill Apple it will make their offerngs stronger.
A headless mac would likely significantly cannibalize iMac sales and result in lower ASPs and therefore lower Apple profitability. But this has been hashed and rehased in the various xMac threads.
No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer. Thus it is difficult for many potential customers to justify the current hardware offerings. To put it simply Apple is missing out on a lot of customers.
Name anything in OS/X that my current gen mini cannot do.
And there is no proof that Apple is missing out on a lot of customers. First you have to show that many more folks value OSX enough to pay a significant premium over HP for the same thing running Windows.
If you can't show that then all you're doing is reducing the price for folks that would have bought a mac anyway.
Well obviously yes or people wouldn't be complaining about iMac performance in this thread. In anyevent I don't know how you expect people to take you seriously with the statement above. In the context of this thread, talk about i7 is talk about performance if you don't think that is important to people then I really don't know what to say.
First you have to show that the folks complaining are average consumers and not prosumers. But really, do you really think the iMac isn't snappy when running iTunes, iLife and Safari?
Second, you continue to ignore that the iMacs will be nehalem later this year and will have comparable performance to i7. Slower yes, but not horridly so.
That doesn't change my opinion that AIR is nothing but junk.
Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt anyone could change it.
I'm not sure how you get the Cube to Mini transition. In any event margins are not everything, if you don't have the volume to cover development and engineering costs the product isn't successful.
At 300-700K desktop sales per qtr Apple has the volume to cover development. Another fact you ignore.
It is a great mistake to believe fat margins solve all of your problems from the business standpoint. Alienate your cutomers with poorly designed hardware or grossly over priced hardware and your sales go south.
That would be a concern if Apple made poorly designed hardware. Or even grossly over priced them when a new rev comes out. Right now, even with the speed bump, Apple really is waiting on Nehalem for a real update.
It's foolish to not believe this was an issue with Apples quick redesign of the MBPs released at WWDC. If people think they are getting screwed by by petty design choices, for a generation of hardware, they will not buy.
Yes, apple on the fly redesigned the MBPs to all have integrated batteries which is a significant design change just for WWDC.
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
If we get them in the iMac which is not a given. As to consummer needs yes they will be to slow for some. I'm not sure why so many have low expectations of computer performance. If iMac does get to i7 performance levels it isn't like this will be state of the art performance when it arrives as the core has been available for a year now.
Nehalem in the iMac is a given. Jeez. Whatever the late 2009 Nehalem iMacs will be, "slow" wont the be likely adjective.
Apples plans are not clear here with respect to iMac and Mini. Frankly if Mini doesn't get updated to core I7 derived hardware I don't think it will be around long.
Well it probably won't get nehalem and it probably will be around a long time.
Actually it has been poorly tended too. This whole thread makes that point pretty obvious. They whole point is that Intels mobile lineup hasn't been implemented in a way that has hept up with what a PC could be thus iMac isn't at all what it could be.
So I don't see how anybody can call iMac an up to date modern computer.
It's as up to date as all the other AIOs waiting for mobile nehalem parts. Likewise there's nothing backward about any of Apple's notebook line.
The only thing Apple hasn't done is use the quad penryns likely from too much heat.
Justified gnashing if this pans out like that. Ideally we will get the 32nm shrink before 2010. Apple customers though have the right and should be more demanding with respect to what Apple offers for sale. Apple can skip quads in the next rev but people really should be up in arms if they do. You may accept Apple holding back and putting artificial limitations on it's hardware but some of us are tired of that.
Dave
Ideally, they'd have released in 2000Q1. That sure didn't happen but it isn't like Apple can do THAT much about Intel's release schedule.
Besides, yammering on a forum does nothing.
I suggest you put words into action and stop buying these horribly designed and maintained Apple products that you're so tired of.
Given that Jobs deliberately axed the Newton...yes.
Yes but it was a business decision just like trimming the Mac lineup was. The goal was get back to profitability. Many seem to think that Newton was aced because Jobs hated it, I'm of the opinion he had no choice.
Apple US Market Share in 1995: 11.1%
Apple US Market Share in 2009 (Q2): 7.4%
Of course, Apple market share tanked from 96-99.
Much of that due to Apples issues with operating systems at the time. Between the uncertainty of the companies survival and it's flailing about with OS development market share was certain to slid. The point is Apple could regain that market share faster if they had a more acceptable hardware line up. I'm not even sure how this is debatable anymore.
The entire lineup is fully SL and OS/X capable.
That all depends upon what you mean by SL capable. I just don't see C2D as coming any where near being optimal for SL. Run it yeah, but fully exploit it's feature I really doubt it. It is basically the samething with the 9400m based machines which only have 16 engines in them. Yeah the 9400M will work with SL but will the experience be anything to write home about, especially when GPU processing has been shown to significantly impact far more powerful GPUs.
So yeah todays Macs can run SL just like a 4 cylinder VW engine can power a ten wheel dump truck. The question is how long would you be happy with that sort of performance when the rest of the trucking world is running circles around you.
A headless mac would likely significantly cannibalize iMac sales and result in lower ASPs and therefore lower Apple profitability. But this has been hashed and rehased in the various xMac threads.
I've seen nothing that supports this arguement! A properly designed and marketed xMac would have the same margins as anyother Apple product thus being as profitable.
[/quote]
Name anything in OS/X that my current gen mini cannot do.
[/quote]
Address 32GB of memory? I'm not sure what the point in your question is though, this thread isn't about what your Mini can eventually do. Rather this thread is about moving Apples rather poorly performing iMacs to a somewhat state of the art performance level.
It is about an update we all know is coming. The problem is what will that update look like.
And there is no proof that Apple is missing out on a lot of customers. First you have to show that many more folks value OSX enough to pay a significant premium over HP for the same thing running Windows.
The proof is pretty obvious, Apples desktop line is suffering big time with respect to it's own laptops. You can't really deny this as Apples numbers have been faitlrly clear here. Plus you focus to much on this so called significant Premium over the Dells. First the Apple tax isn't that significant and second an upgradeable machine lowers the impact of that tax significantly.
Note too that a more salable machine can also be an iMac along with the mythical xMac. Produce an iMac with two or more user accessible drive bays and access to the RAM slots and you will dramatically increase interest I'm the iMac. Right now the iMac is close to being a totally closed machine to anybody with less than a well equiped shop. The new MBPs shows that Apple can design easily maintained equipment.
If you can't show that then all you're doing is reducing the price for folks that would have bought a mac anyway.
Apple is haveing issues with their desktop machines and it is directly related to the line up of hardware they currently have. There is little sense in even arguing the point.
First you have to show that the folks complaining are average consumers and not prosumers. But really, do you really think the iMac isn't snappy when running iTunes, iLife and Safari?
Actually it makes little difference.
As to the issue of Snappy it certainly can have moments of lag and poor performance. You have to realize though that there is more to a home users life than Safari. Oh by the way slap a little Flash into a web site and even Safari starts to really lag. You could say that is a flash problem but you also can't deny that faster hardware would help.
Second, you continue to ignore that the iMacs will be nehalem later this year and will have comparable performance to i7. Slower yes, but not horridly so.
nope, what I'm saying is that I don't know that to be the case. Nor do I know what GPU hardware they will be supporting. On top of that I'm saying that Apple made a big mistake in not introducing a quad core at the last iMac update. The point being that you will need quad core to really leverage SL when it comes out.
Your opinion is your opinion. I doubt anyone could change it.
True but I'm not completely bullheaded even though the last girlfriend said so. The one that could change my mind is Apple. You see I'm not disgusted with AIR the idea but rather AIR the implementation. Address it's significant shortcomings and I might take interest.
For example one issue is the wired Ethernet port or lack there of. A very important feature for those that travel. You may say that is strange why not use WiFi when traveling. To which I would respond reliability, availability and speed. A wired Internet connection is sometimes the better choice when traveling.
That is just one of a few small details that leave me convulsing when thinking about AIR.
At 300-700K desktop sales per qtr Apple has the volume to cover development. Another fact you ignore.
Spread over three product lines? It isn't being ignored by me that is for sure and probably isn't being ignored by the fianacial community. If Apple has 15 engineers assigned to desktops and the average $80,000 a year that is $300,000 a quarter right there. Fifeteen is likely a very low number and doesn't even include support staff and marketting. Plus we haven't even discussed that margin Apple loves so much. So in your worst case one dollar of every desktop goes to support those fifeteen engineers in this hypothetical case. The reality is like far worst as the whole department has to be supported on those sales.
People often wonder why the iMac and the Pro go for so long without fancy case upgrades and the like. The answer is pretty simple the sales are not there to pay for major bi-annual updates to the whole product. I have to wonder if anybody on the outside knows what the true engineering burden is for each desktop Mac. Not so much $$$$ but the head count required to maintain the desktop line up. I'm pretty much convinced that it is more than the fifeteen for this example but is it hundreds or more?
That would be a concern if Apple made poorly designed hardware. Or even grossly over priced them when a new rev comes out. Right now, even with the speed bump, Apple really is waiting on Nehalem for a real update.
Apple has produced some really bad hardware in the past do that is always a possibility. I do not however see the iMacs as bad hardware, what I see is underpowered hardware that really isn't suitable for Apples new OS update which will be here shortly. That is what makes them bad purchases.
Yes, apple on the fly redesigned the MBPs to all have integrated batteries which is a significant design change just for WWDC.
Which just highlights that Apple could have a major iMac overhaul in mind too. Maybe even Mini. I just wonder if the MBP update demonstrates a new willingness on Apples part to put heavy engineering effort into the desktops. It is an area that needs lots of investment.
What are you smoking? Can I have some?
don't smoke here at all! So what was it that caused this comment anyways?
Nehalem in the iMac is a given. Jeez. Whatever the late 2009 Nehalem iMacs will be, "slow" wont the be likely adjective.
Nothing is a given right now. As to fast that is a very interesting discussion as they will certainly be faster than the old machines but will they be fast enough to fill that big gulf that would be the midrange? This is the thing Apple needs to fill this gap with something, I'd even settle for an iMac if it was properly human seviceable and added internal drive bays.
Well it probably won't get nehalem and it probably will be around a long time.
I'd expect Nehalam by early 2010. Not something with an especially fast clock but something to take advantage of the higher integration. Frankly Nehalam is almost ideal for Mini and could actually lead to a lower cost device. Apple might not use it the way Intel intended but I could see that happening.
It's as up to date as all the other AIOs waiting for mobile nehalem parts. Likewise there's nothing backward about any of Apple's notebook line.
I have to disagree as there is a whole line up of small form factor chips that are not used on iMac. It may be close to up to date as far as mobile parts go but it certainly isn't the chip for supporting SL. It is a stopgap measure. A poor one at that based on performance, longevity and cost.
[quote]
The only thing Apple hasn't done is use the quad penryns likely from too much heat.
[/quite]
it is a desktop computer, if they can't manage the thermal load then I have to wonder what is up at Apple.
Ideally, they'd have released in 2000Q1. That sure didn't happen but it isn't like Apple can do THAT much about Intel's release schedule.
Besides, yammering on a forum does nothing.
on the contrary it does look lik yammering does help Apple to see the light. This probably combined with more reasoned complaints to Apple itself. Some of the things corrected with the new Mab Book Pro releases seem to indicate a responsiveness from Apple we have not seen lately. I'm taliking details like support for more RAM, Firewire and some of the other lesser features that seem to address user complaints.
I suggest you put words into action and stop buying these horribly designed and maintained Apple products that you're so tired of.
Well I have! That is why I went with a Mac Book Pro over a year ago. It is also why many are holding off purchases hoping that Apple can get a more reasonably configured machine out the door. Apple has been milking both the iMac and the Mini for couple of years now so it is no wonder that sales have lagged. The issues of serviceability and performance aren't even remotely new with regards to these models so I'm not sure why people are surprised when others here lobby for significant refinements or more modern approaches.
Dave