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.
It's nice to have an opinion. Perhaps it would be nicer to have more than just conjecture.
The fact is, even then Apple had a lot of money in the bank AND the Newton was finally showing signs of a breakthrough.
Quote:
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 point is that Apple had both more models AND more share and no profitability.
It is debatable because you want more models and lower profitability. If you don't care to debate it further, simply don't.
Quote:
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.
I mean that all machines today can benefit from Grand Central and OpenCL and speed performance for certain tasks. The 9400M isn't a bad little chip and frankly if you want better graphics, then order the 120GT version of the iMac.
Quote:
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.
Todays Macs will run Snow Leopard better than it runs Leopard and SL has features beyond Grand Central and OpenCL. Both of which require code support so at first few apps will use those features.
Quote:
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.
The xMac "suggestions" have always been priced lower than the iMac. Which means lower average sale prices which means even at the same margins a reduction in profitability.
This is why the Mini is usually crippled in comparison to the iMac. Selling a $700 mini is a lot worse than selling a $1200 iMac even if the margins are the same.
Quote:
Address 32GB of memory?
Yep, you got me there.
Quote:
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.
Gee, you know comments are usually made against the quoted section directly above the comment and not necessarily against the thread as a whole. You made the comment that
"No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer"
Other than addressing 32GB of ram, what exactly can't either the mini (a lower grade machine than the iMac) or iMac cannot do within OS/X?
Quote:
It is about an update we all know is coming. The problem is what will that update look like.
Nehalem + whatever the latest nVidia GPU is.
Quote:
The proof is pretty obvious, Apples desktop line is suffering big time with respect to it's own laptops.
Everyone's desktops are suffering with respect to their own laptops. Desktop sales plummeted 28% (or whatever it was).
Quote:
You can't really deny this as Apples numbers have been faitlrly clear here.
Given the report it seems AIOs are doing better than towers. If so, Apple's numbers should show the opposite...better desktop sales performance than the current industry average vis-a-vis notebooks.
Quote:
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.
If there is no Apple tax, exactly what are you complaining about? Your $1200 iMac should be just as performant as a $1200 Dell tower...oh wait, no, it's not.
Quote:
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.
Well too bad. I am arguing the point because you have no facts to show that Apple's desktop performance is suffering any worse than the industry at the moment. Given that the tower market is in serious decline (I think the word freefall was used) there seems little need for Apple to spend any effort in significantly changing it's desktop line.
Quote:
Actually it makes little difference.
It makes the world of difference. You actually have to show that the average Apple consumer cares about what you suggest is wrong with the iMacs.
Quote:
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.
Please, do you care to bet on it? That nehalem wont be in the next update?
Quote:
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.
No SL but grand central. All the opencl stuff will work fine even with w 9400M and certainly with the 120 and 130.
Quote:
For example one issue is the wired Ethernet port or lack there of. A very important feature for those that travel.
Do you travel? I do, a lot. And you can get a USB dongle for ethernet anyway. Instead, I pack an old airport express...which at 8 ounces allows me to work where I want and not where they stuck the ethernet jack.
Quote:
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.
Wifi has higher availability and reliability is more with the hotel than the technology. Plus I've had dead ports in my rooms too. Most places have slower WAN access than WiFi anyway.
Quote:
That is just one of a few small details that leave me convulsing when thinking about AIR.
If you're convulsing over the Air I suggest you stop taking Apple or technology so seriously. Most sane folks simply don't buy one and move on.
Quote:
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.
Yah...so your solution is to introduce more models at lower ASPs which requires more engineers.
The reality is that Apple makes an amazing amount of money on the line up it has. More than Dell or HP on a per machine basis. Diluting that with more models is "suboptimal".
Quote:
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.
Until the unibody, pray tell how different a powerbook looked from a MBP? Perhaps Apple doesn't do fancy case upgrades because the designs tend to look good enough to last several years.
Quote:
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.
Then don't buy any. Of course, there's no difference between them and the MBP you just bought. If the iMac is "underpowered" then the MBP even more so.
Quote:
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.
You think they have a major iMac overhaul in mind? Gee, whatever gave you that idea? Not the upcoming release of Nehalem is it? Oh wait...you don't "know" thats what they are going to use.
Quote:
don't smoke here at all! So what was it that caused this comment anyways?
The assertion that the MBP changes are last minute is completely idiotic. My comment about the redesign being last minute for WWDC was completely sarcastic.
Quote:
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.
The mini won't get it because then performance would be too close to that of the iMac. Expect the mini to get some speed bumps over the next year but no substantive changes. If Apple DOES update the mini then awesome, I'll buy another but I really really doubt it.
Quote:
I have to disagree as there is a whole line up of small form factor chips that are not used on iMac.
Really? Name one. What chip do you propose should be in an iMac today besides the C2D?
Quote:
Well I have! That is why I went with a Mac Book Pro over a year ago.
Which is less performant than the same generation iMac at a higher price. Congrats.
Quote:
It is also why many are holding off purchases hoping that Apple can get a more reasonably configured machine out the door.
Many folks are waiting for Nehalem before buying either notebook or iMac. It represents a significant update. I've put off my MBP purchase until that time. I bought a mini because it represents a great value in Apple's line up.
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October. To me, it seems to make more sense to do it late August/early September, you know, when people are buying things for school.
They can then give educational discounts on hardware they are about to update. This allows them to throw in an iPod Touch. And the schools have already bought Macs in June and these are mostly MacBooks now days.
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.
It had other major problems as well. Apple under Spindler and Amelio was very set in its ways. The way business was being done changed, but Apple stayed true to the obsolete fixed configurations through retailers sales model while the industry was shifting to a BTO direct sales model.
Quote:
The point is Apple could regain that market share faster if they had a more acceptable desktop hardware line up. I'm not even sure how this is debatable anymore.
Its debatable because a) honestly, it is shrinking as laptops become more powerful and b) there are those who believe that Apple's decisions are infallible. You can't argue against a dogmatic position.
It had other major problems as well. Apple under Spindler and Amelio was very set in its ways. The way business was being done changed, but Apple stayed true to the obsolete fixed configurations through retailers sales model while the industry was shifting to a BTO direct sales model.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
The retail climate was very different 10-15 years ago. We were talking Bob's computers, not Best Buy.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
Do you have any figures on what percentage of Dell's business is direct, and what is through retail?
The retail climate was very different 10-15 years ago. We were talking Bob's computers, not Best Buy.
You can't talk about a short time without losing sight of where things stand now. Even back then, direct sales were mostly the purview of Dell. What other major manufacturer sold exclusively, or almost exclusively through direct sales? None. It wasn't a trend. Even now, direct sales are just a part of any manufacturer's sales.
It isn't direct sales that are responsible for Apple's resurgence either. It's the combination if the iPod/itunes combo and the brick and mortar stores that Apple has so successfully managed to confound everyone with. also, the increased retail outlets from third parties.
But I find some of its statements to be odd. If Dell doesn't separate out its retail sales from its online sales, how do we know that the $4.8 billion figure given for 2008, an increase over 2007's $4.2 billion, isn't including retail sales, considering that Dell's sales had fallen overall? They don't address this problem.
As we can see, Apple's online sales, which are broken out from their other venues, has also increased. They are now number five, up from number seven a year earlier.
But, it's still just about 15% of Apple's sales. That's not a game changer.
You can't talk about a short time without losing sight of where things stand now. Even back then, direct sales were mostly the purview of Dell. What other major manufacturer sold exclusively, or almost exclusively through direct sales? None. It wasn't a trend. Even now, direct sales are just a part of any manufacturer's sales.
Gateway was another. They and others were winnowed out. Until a couple years ago, I think that might have been more due to Dell's marketing strength and consolidation of the market towards Dell rather than simply because the web order market was weak. Dell practically owned that market.
Quote:
Bob's Computers?
I think that's his the generic stand-in for the computer a person bought that was probably assembled locally from off the shelf parts and sold locally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There aren't any numbers because Dell doesn't state retail sales separate from online sales.
This article shows that Dell is really just beginning with retail in a broad way:
Still, I doubt that retail is the majority of Dell's sales, it may settle out that way, but it's early in the transition. I think they started their trial with Staples two years ago and gradually rolled out from that. That would be a pretty radical shift to go from all phone/mail/web order to mostly retail already. Before their Staples trial, they had something close to 40% of the US market without having to rely on retail, that was only two years ago.
Desktop sales are down because there are no longer any significant compromises involved in using a laptop as a primary machine for the majority of users, and they offer significant advantages for a lot more people as secondary machines. This is not a trend that will reverse, because the problem isn't power or expandability, it's portability. Even if Apple offered some wildly expandable desktop for $700 it would still be a big brick of a machine and a great many people would look at it and buy a MacBook: It's powerful enough, runs everything well enough, and you can throw it in your bag and take it with you.
That said, I would not be surprised if Apple reorganizes the desktop line to be somewhat parallel to the laptop line: White plastic with an adequate consumer-grade 20" display at the low end, aluminum with good 20" and 24" displays in the middle, and maybe pro-grade 8-bit displays at the top as the iMac evolves into a pro machine, chasing the Mac Pro farther and farther into its niche.
Gateway was another. They and others were winnowed out. Until a couple years ago, I think that might have been more due to Dell's marketing strength and consolidation of the market towards Dell rather than because the web order market was weak. They practically owned that market.
It's easy to forget about Gateway, but I also saw them in stores.
Quote:
I think that's the generic stand-in for the computer a person bought that was probably assembled and sold locally.
That's what I figured, but that's a "white box" computer sold in stores, not online.
Quote:
Still, I doubt that retail is the majority of Dell's sales, it may settle out that way, but it's early in the transition. I think they started their trial with Staples two years ago and gradually rolled out from that. That would be a pretty radical shift to go from all phone/mail/web order to mostly retail. Before their Staples trial, they had something close to 40% of the US market without having to rely on retail, that was only two years ago.
Also, Dells sales are mainly to corporations, and also consists of software and management. Dell's sales are in the $60 billion range, so its online retail sales are just a very small part of its business. Even smaller than Apple's, as a percentage.
Desktop sales are down because there are no longer any significant compromises involved in using a laptop as a primary machine for the majority of users, and they offer significant advantages for a lot more people as secondary machines. This is not a trend that will reverse, because the problem isn't power or expandability, it's portability. Even if Apple offered some wildly expandable desktop for $700 it would still be a big brick of a machine and a great many people would look at it and buy a MacBook: It's powerful enough, runs everything well enough, and you can throw it in your bag and take it with you.
That said, I would not be surprised if Apple reorganizes the desktop line to be somewhat parallel to the laptop line: White plastic with an adequate consumer-grade 20" display at the low end, aluminum with good 20" and 24" displays in the middle, and maybe pro-grade 8-bit displays at the top as the iMac evolves into a pro machine, chasing the Mac Pro farther and farther into its niche.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
The newer S-PVA panels have eliminated the color shifting the older panels exhibited, and so are about equal to the slightly more expensive IPS panels. They are somewhat slower in response to the cheaper TN panels, but faster than the IPS ones, making them better for gaming.
But even IPS displays have a slight purple looking black when viewed at an angle, so none of these are perfect.
It's easy to forget about Gateway, but I also saw them in stores.
They had to do that some time ago, but they weren't retail for a good while. I think eMachines was online only for a while, shifted to Best Buy and such, and Gateway bought them too.
Quote:
That's what I figured, but that's a "white box" computer sold in stores, not online.
I think that's what he meant as being the retail landscape back then. Retail computer stores weren't as attractive and had a lot more mom-and-pop size stores than big box really hasn't begun to take away their business.
They had to do that some time ago, but they weren't retail for a good while. I think eMachines was online only for a while, shifted to Best Buy and such, and Gateway bought them too.
Actually, E-Machines bought Gateway, though it wasn't publicly indicated as such.
Quote:
I think that's what he meant as being the retail landscape back then. Retail computer stores weren't as attractive and had a lot more mom-and-pop size stores than big box really hasn't begun to take away their business.
That's mostly true, though I do remember companies such as The Wiz and others such as Sears, selling computers. Certainly BB was selling computers before they took on the original iMac line. I seem to remember computers in Circuit City back then as well.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
[...]
[E]ven Eizo uses S-PVA panels.
The lineup's even simpler, then: White plastic case = 20" 6 bit display, up to 4GB RAM, decent GPU. Aluminum case = 20" and 24" (and bigger?) 8 bit display, up to 8GB RAM, good GPU.
Apple could bring back the eMac brand if they're worried about having two different looking iMac lines, but I'm not convinced they would be.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
The newer S-PVA panels have eliminated the color shifting the older panels exhibited, and so are about equal to the slightly more expensive IPS panels. They are somewhat slower in response to the cheaper TN panels, but faster than the IPS ones, making them better for gaming.
But even IPS displays have a slight purple looking black when viewed at an angle, so none of these are perfect.
Also, even Eizo uses S-PVA panels.
Eizo uses S-PVA/TN in their bottom of the rung EcoView 22/24" monitors. For $100 more I can get the HP LP2475w Black 24" 6 ms (GTG) with an H-IPS display.
There is no way I'd touch that POS from Eizo with such an available option from HP.
Eizo uses S-PVA/TN in their bottom of the rung EcoView 22/24" monitors. For $100 more I can get the HP LP2475w Black 24" 6 ms (GTG) with an H-IPS display.
There is no way I'd touch that POS from Eizo with such an available option from HP.
It's obvious that you haven't used those Eizo's then. They're pretty good.
Not everyone wants to spend the extra $100 for the small improvement the Hp will give. Once both are calibrated, I doubt you could see the difference.
Comments
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.
It's nice to have an opinion. Perhaps it would be nicer to have more than just conjecture.
The fact is, even then Apple had a lot of money in the bank AND the Newton was finally showing signs of a breakthrough.
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 point is that Apple had both more models AND more share and no profitability.
It is debatable because you want more models and lower profitability. If you don't care to debate it further, simply don't.
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.
I mean that all machines today can benefit from Grand Central and OpenCL and speed performance for certain tasks. The 9400M isn't a bad little chip and frankly if you want better graphics, then order the 120GT version of the iMac.
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.
Todays Macs will run Snow Leopard better than it runs Leopard and SL has features beyond Grand Central and OpenCL. Both of which require code support so at first few apps will use those features.
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.
The xMac "suggestions" have always been priced lower than the iMac. Which means lower average sale prices which means even at the same margins a reduction in profitability.
This is why the Mini is usually crippled in comparison to the iMac. Selling a $700 mini is a lot worse than selling a $1200 iMac even if the margins are the same.
Address 32GB of memory?
Yep, you got me there.
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.
Gee, you know comments are usually made against the quoted section directly above the comment and not necessarily against the thread as a whole. You made the comment that
"No Apple is not producing hardware that can fully realize what Mac OS/X has to offer"
Other than addressing 32GB of ram, what exactly can't either the mini (a lower grade machine than the iMac) or iMac cannot do within OS/X?
It is about an update we all know is coming. The problem is what will that update look like.
Nehalem + whatever the latest nVidia GPU is.
The proof is pretty obvious, Apples desktop line is suffering big time with respect to it's own laptops.
Everyone's desktops are suffering with respect to their own laptops. Desktop sales plummeted 28% (or whatever it was).
You can't really deny this as Apples numbers have been faitlrly clear here.
Given the report it seems AIOs are doing better than towers. If so, Apple's numbers should show the opposite...better desktop sales performance than the current industry average vis-a-vis notebooks.
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.
If there is no Apple tax, exactly what are you complaining about? Your $1200 iMac should be just as performant as a $1200 Dell tower...oh wait, no, it's not.
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.
Well too bad. I am arguing the point because you have no facts to show that Apple's desktop performance is suffering any worse than the industry at the moment. Given that the tower market is in serious decline (I think the word freefall was used) there seems little need for Apple to spend any effort in significantly changing it's desktop line.
Actually it makes little difference.
It makes the world of difference. You actually have to show that the average Apple consumer cares about what you suggest is wrong with the iMacs.
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.
Please, do you care to bet on it? That nehalem wont be in the next update?
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.
No SL but grand central. All the opencl stuff will work fine even with w 9400M and certainly with the 120 and 130.
For example one issue is the wired Ethernet port or lack there of. A very important feature for those that travel.
Do you travel? I do, a lot. And you can get a USB dongle for ethernet anyway. Instead, I pack an old airport express...which at 8 ounces allows me to work where I want and not where they stuck the ethernet jack.
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.
Wifi has higher availability and reliability is more with the hotel than the technology. Plus I've had dead ports in my rooms too. Most places have slower WAN access than WiFi anyway.
That is just one of a few small details that leave me convulsing when thinking about AIR.
If you're convulsing over the Air I suggest you stop taking Apple or technology so seriously. Most sane folks simply don't buy one and move on.
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.
Yah...so your solution is to introduce more models at lower ASPs which requires more engineers.
The reality is that Apple makes an amazing amount of money on the line up it has. More than Dell or HP on a per machine basis. Diluting that with more models is "suboptimal".
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.
Until the unibody, pray tell how different a powerbook looked from a MBP? Perhaps Apple doesn't do fancy case upgrades because the designs tend to look good enough to last several years.
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.
Then don't buy any. Of course, there's no difference between them and the MBP you just bought. If the iMac is "underpowered" then the MBP even more so.
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.
You think they have a major iMac overhaul in mind? Gee, whatever gave you that idea? Not the upcoming release of Nehalem is it? Oh wait...you don't "know" thats what they are going to use.
don't smoke here at all! So what was it that caused this comment anyways?
The assertion that the MBP changes are last minute is completely idiotic. My comment about the redesign being last minute for WWDC was completely sarcastic.
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.
The mini won't get it because then performance would be too close to that of the iMac. Expect the mini to get some speed bumps over the next year but no substantive changes. If Apple DOES update the mini then awesome, I'll buy another but I really really doubt it.
I have to disagree as there is a whole line up of small form factor chips that are not used on iMac.
Really? Name one. What chip do you propose should be in an iMac today besides the C2D?
Well I have! That is why I went with a Mac Book Pro over a year ago.
Which is less performant than the same generation iMac at a higher price. Congrats.
It is also why many are holding off purchases hoping that Apple can get a more reasonably configured machine out the door.
Many folks are waiting for Nehalem before buying either notebook or iMac. It represents a significant update. I've put off my MBP purchase until that time. I bought a mini because it represents a great value in Apple's line up.
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October. To me, it seems to make more sense to do it late August/early September, you know, when people are buying things for school.
They can then give educational discounts on hardware they are about to update. This allows them to throw in an iPod Touch. And the schools have already bought Macs in June and these are mostly MacBooks now days.
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.
It had other major problems as well. Apple under Spindler and Amelio was very set in its ways. The way business was being done changed, but Apple stayed true to the obsolete fixed configurations through retailers sales model while the industry was shifting to a BTO direct sales model.
The point is Apple could regain that market share faster if they had a more acceptable desktop hardware line up. I'm not even sure how this is debatable anymore.
Its debatable because a) honestly, it is shrinking as laptops become more powerful and b) there are those who believe that Apple's decisions are infallible. You can't argue against a dogmatic position.
It had other major problems as well. Apple under Spindler and Amelio was very set in its ways. The way business was being done changed, but Apple stayed true to the obsolete fixed configurations through retailers sales model while the industry was shifting to a BTO direct sales model.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
The retail climate was very different 10-15 years ago. We were talking Bob's computers, not Best Buy.
As Dell has found, direct sales are a failure now, with production in the far east. While a certain percentage of direct sales are helpful, brick and mortar sales are much more important.
Do you have any figures on what percentage of Dell's business is direct, and what is through retail?
The retail climate was very different 10-15 years ago. We were talking Bob's computers, not Best Buy.
You can't talk about a short time without losing sight of where things stand now. Even back then, direct sales were mostly the purview of Dell. What other major manufacturer sold exclusively, or almost exclusively through direct sales? None. It wasn't a trend. Even now, direct sales are just a part of any manufacturer's sales.
It isn't direct sales that are responsible for Apple's resurgence either. It's the combination if the iPod/itunes combo and the brick and mortar stores that Apple has so successfully managed to confound everyone with. also, the increased retail outlets from third parties.
Bob's Computers?
Do you have any figures on what percentage of Dell's business is direct, and what is through retail?
There aren't any numbers because Dell doesn't state retail sales separate from online sales.
This article shows that Dell is really just beginning with retail in a broad way:
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...25/story8.html
But I find some of its statements to be odd. If Dell doesn't separate out its retail sales from its online sales, how do we know that the $4.8 billion figure given for 2008, an increase over 2007's $4.2 billion, isn't including retail sales, considering that Dell's sales had fallen overall? They don't address this problem.
As we can see, Apple's online sales, which are broken out from their other venues, has also increased. They are now number five, up from number seven a year earlier.
But, it's still just about 15% of Apple's sales. That's not a game changer.
You can't talk about a short time without losing sight of where things stand now. Even back then, direct sales were mostly the purview of Dell. What other major manufacturer sold exclusively, or almost exclusively through direct sales? None. It wasn't a trend. Even now, direct sales are just a part of any manufacturer's sales.
Gateway was another. They and others were winnowed out. Until a couple years ago, I think that might have been more due to Dell's marketing strength and consolidation of the market towards Dell rather than simply because the web order market was weak. Dell practically owned that market.
Bob's Computers?
I think that's his the generic stand-in for the computer a person bought that was probably assembled locally from off the shelf parts and sold locally.
There aren't any numbers because Dell doesn't state retail sales separate from online sales.
This article shows that Dell is really just beginning with retail in a broad way:
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...25/story8.html
Still, I doubt that retail is the majority of Dell's sales, it may settle out that way, but it's early in the transition. I think they started their trial with Staples two years ago and gradually rolled out from that. That would be a pretty radical shift to go from all phone/mail/web order to mostly retail already. Before their Staples trial, they had something close to 40% of the US market without having to rely on retail, that was only two years ago.
That said, I would not be surprised if Apple reorganizes the desktop line to be somewhat parallel to the laptop line: White plastic with an adequate consumer-grade 20" display at the low end, aluminum with good 20" and 24" displays in the middle, and maybe pro-grade 8-bit displays at the top as the iMac evolves into a pro machine, chasing the Mac Pro farther and farther into its niche.
Gateway was another. They and others were winnowed out. Until a couple years ago, I think that might have been more due to Dell's marketing strength and consolidation of the market towards Dell rather than because the web order market was weak. They practically owned that market.
It's easy to forget about Gateway, but I also saw them in stores.
I think that's the generic stand-in for the computer a person bought that was probably assembled and sold locally.
That's what I figured, but that's a "white box" computer sold in stores, not online.
Still, I doubt that retail is the majority of Dell's sales, it may settle out that way, but it's early in the transition. I think they started their trial with Staples two years ago and gradually rolled out from that. That would be a pretty radical shift to go from all phone/mail/web order to mostly retail. Before their Staples trial, they had something close to 40% of the US market without having to rely on retail, that was only two years ago.
Also, Dells sales are mainly to corporations, and also consists of software and management. Dell's sales are in the $60 billion range, so its online retail sales are just a very small part of its business. Even smaller than Apple's, as a percentage.
Desktop sales are down because there are no longer any significant compromises involved in using a laptop as a primary machine for the majority of users, and they offer significant advantages for a lot more people as secondary machines. This is not a trend that will reverse, because the problem isn't power or expandability, it's portability. Even if Apple offered some wildly expandable desktop for $700 it would still be a big brick of a machine and a great many people would look at it and buy a MacBook: It's powerful enough, runs everything well enough, and you can throw it in your bag and take it with you.
That said, I would not be surprised if Apple reorganizes the desktop line to be somewhat parallel to the laptop line: White plastic with an adequate consumer-grade 20" display at the low end, aluminum with good 20" and 24" displays in the middle, and maybe pro-grade 8-bit displays at the top as the iMac evolves into a pro machine, chasing the Mac Pro farther and farther into its niche.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
The newer S-PVA panels have eliminated the color shifting the older panels exhibited, and so are about equal to the slightly more expensive IPS panels. They are somewhat slower in response to the cheaper TN panels, but faster than the IPS ones, making them better for gaming.
But even IPS displays have a slight purple looking black when viewed at an angle, so none of these are perfect.
Also, even Eizo uses S-PVA panels.
It's easy to forget about Gateway, but I also saw them in stores.
They had to do that some time ago, but they weren't retail for a good while. I think eMachines was online only for a while, shifted to Best Buy and such, and Gateway bought them too.
That's what I figured, but that's a "white box" computer sold in stores, not online.
I think that's what he meant as being the retail landscape back then. Retail computer stores weren't as attractive and had a lot more mom-and-pop size stores than big box really hasn't begun to take away their business.
They had to do that some time ago, but they weren't retail for a good while. I think eMachines was online only for a while, shifted to Best Buy and such, and Gateway bought them too.
Actually, E-Machines bought Gateway, though it wasn't publicly indicated as such.
I think that's what he meant as being the retail landscape back then. Retail computer stores weren't as attractive and had a lot more mom-and-pop size stores than big box really hasn't begun to take away their business.
That's mostly true, though I do remember companies such as The Wiz and others such as Sears, selling computers. Certainly BB was selling computers before they took on the original iMac line. I seem to remember computers in Circuit City back then as well.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
[...]
[E]ven Eizo uses S-PVA panels.
The lineup's even simpler, then: White plastic case = 20" 6 bit display, up to 4GB RAM, decent GPU. Aluminum case = 20" and 24" (and bigger?) 8 bit display, up to 8GB RAM, good GPU.
Apple could bring back the eMac brand if they're worried about having two different looking iMac lines, but I'm not convinced they would be.
Memories for long time New Yorkers.
That's mostly true, though I do remember companies such as The Wiz.
Apple's 24" iMac uses an 8 bit display. That's one reason why pro photographers like this computer so much. It's a S-PVA panel.
The newer S-PVA panels have eliminated the color shifting the older panels exhibited, and so are about equal to the slightly more expensive IPS panels. They are somewhat slower in response to the cheaper TN panels, but faster than the IPS ones, making them better for gaming.
But even IPS displays have a slight purple looking black when viewed at an angle, so none of these are perfect.
Also, even Eizo uses S-PVA panels.
Eizo uses S-PVA/TN in their bottom of the rung EcoView 22/24" monitors. For $100 more I can get the HP LP2475w Black 24" 6 ms (GTG) with an H-IPS display.
There is no way I'd touch that POS from Eizo with such an available option from HP.
Eizo uses S-PVA/TN in their bottom of the rung EcoView 22/24" monitors. For $100 more I can get the HP LP2475w Black 24" 6 ms (GTG) with an H-IPS display.
There is no way I'd touch that POS from Eizo with such an available option from HP.
It's obvious that you haven't used those Eizo's then. They're pretty good.
Not everyone wants to spend the extra $100 for the small improvement the Hp will give. Once both are calibrated, I doubt you could see the difference.