I did mean what I wrote. In the case that you quoted, it was the third-party RAM that had failed. Why should Apple cover that? If you replace RAM in your Mac, it can be a good idea to hold on to said RAM, so that if anything goes wrong, you can swap the original RAM back in. If the problem then goes away, you know you need the third-party RAM replaced, and if the problem remains, it's something else and the machine can be returned to Apple.
I find it odd that you are trying to prove that adding third party RAM voids your warranty, yet you quote information from Apple which categorically states that that is not the case ("Adding DRAM, VRAM or other user-installable upgrade or expansion products to an Apple computer is not considered a modification to that Apple product).
One thing I know to be true, is that even if you install a third party upgrade, as allowed by Apple, if that upgrade is seen as having caused damage to the Apple hardware, your warrantee may be voided, and you will be charged for the repair.
The vast majority of people never upgrade their machines, and that goes for PC people as well.
That's right. I'm amazed when I talk to the average person about computers, how many still don't understand the difference between memory and hard disk space. Many would buy a new computer before thinking about adding more memory because they simply don't know what adding more memory means.
From what I've read of Apple policy, I would concur with both of you.
.
As part of that, from Apple's warrantee:
Quote:
This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products;
Quote:
(d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider;
Quote:
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS WARRANTY AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, APPLE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION,
This comes directly from this page on Aple's site:
Even if a product is doing well, such as the iPod mini, they'll kill it in favor of something better (the iPod nano). I hope that's what will happen if the rumor about the death of the Mac mini is true.
I don't mind if they do that. If they really do have a better product, then by all means, release it.
But when Apple discontinued the Cube, for example, it was only selling about 50 thousand a month.***
Many people had good reasons for why the sales were low. If Apple had listened to those reasons, the product could very well have achieved a respectable sales quota.
But, Apple discontinued it instead. They had NO replacement in the wings.
When jobs took over, he cut the very profitable, and popular, (according to financial analysts at the time) monitor, printer, and scanner divisions. That put Apple in a more precarious position that it would have been.
Later, after their newer crt monitors had been very successful, among the PC industry as well as Apple users, he discontinued them to great outcry, for the very high priced line of LCD models, which Apple sold far fewer of.
There are more.
***
EDIT: I just noticed an error here. It should have been 50 thousand a QUARTER.
The Mini as we know it is dead. The AppleTV has it's purpose and will very likely remain what and where it is in Apple's lineup. Everyone has been speculating about a flash-based Macbook... while we may see such an incarnation, lest we forget that the mini is built off of laptop components. The consumer portable has already be redesigned so I highly doubt we will see any changes to that line. The iMac and the mini are next in line for a major overhaul. We will see the mini continue but only in a slimmed down, flash-based form as a proper compliment to the AppleTV. Now if they could only drop the price.
Manchester had two on Saturday on display and no 8 core Mac Pro, ergo the Mac Pro 8 core is dead and the sky is falling in.
Really! \
But the Mac Pro takes a more display space and is a very niche product.
The Mac Mini take very little space to display and at it's low cost can almost be made as an impulse purchase and should be on display to switchers etc. I'm sure the Mini sells in far higher volumes in high-street shops than the Mac Pro 8-core does.
The iMac and the mini are next in line for a major overhaul. We will see the mini continue but only in a slimmed down, flash-based form as a proper compliment to the AppleTV. Now if they could only drop the price.
There are good reasons for flash based storage in a portable: power and space saving. I see no such reason to use expensive flash storage in a desktop computer, unless Steve Jobs really want's to make a Mac shuffle that will clip to his pants pocket.
I don't mind if they do that. If they really do have a better product, then by all means, release it.
But when Apple discontinued the Cube, for example, it was only selling about 50 thousand a month.
Many people had good reasons for why the sales were low. If Apple had listened to those reasons, the product could very well have achieved a respectable sales quota.
But, Apple discontinued it instead. They had NO replacement in the wings.
When jobs took over, he cut the very profitable, and popular, (according to financial analysts at the time) monitor, printer, and scanner divisions. That put Apple in a more precarious position that it would have been.
Later, after their newer crt monitors had been very successful, among the PC industry as well as Apple users, he discontinued them to great outcry, for the very high priced line of LCD models, which Apple sold far fewer of.
There are more.
Is that the best you got?
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
When Jobs returned, Apple had recently lost a billion dollars in one year. Things had to be slashed and Apple needed to return to its core business, computer hardware, to return to profitability.
Since then, with the success of the iMac and the iPod, Apple is a healthy company again. I see no reason now why Apple should not offer more variety in their line of computers as well as their consumer electronics products such as the phone and the aTV. Personally, I don't think the phone and aTV will turn out to be such huge successes as the iMac and iPod, but we'll see.
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
If you were around for those discussions, you would have seen some good analysis.
Apple came out with a completely upgradable machine, which they then failed to advertise as one.
They came out with it as a G4 machine, which at the time was a very expensive situation. If they came out with it as a G3, then is could have been as much as 30% cheaper.
Those were two of the biggest reasons, but there were others as well.
Quote:
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
That's an narrow minded statement.
You think I was the only one to notice this, and comment badly about it?
You would be very wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that ad agencies, Tv stations, and design houses were buying Apple's Studio monitors in great numbers, as were video, photo, and graphic pros. That was the market the monitors were intended for, and Apple was very successful in selling monitors into it. If you knew anything about them, and you can look it up now, before you reply, you will see that they WERE innovative.
By your theory, Apple immediately came out with new printers (they never did again), new scanners (ditto there too), and new, competitive monitors (forget it!).
None of that happened.
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
Quote:
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
As Apple becomes a bigger company, they will have to have more products.
It will take the failure of just one highly touted product to send Apple's stock into a tailspin otherwise. Understanding that is just good business.
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
This time it is different: most of us (and possibly they == Apple should understand it too, if they anygood on marketing) do not need Xeon 8-core superpower and 16 GB of very expensive full-whatervered RAM. So, rereleasing low-priced Cube is much safer now...
Just make it: Core2Duo 2.66 or Core2Quad 2.4 (socket 775), 4GB RAM standard max, standard SATA 3.5 disk, graphic card (not integrated crappy!)...
***
Yes, shure, it is stupid for Apple to compete head-to-head in low-priced monitor market. I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe ) still they do them to put in the boxes with Mac Pros neverminding that users ultimately will buy MicroSoft or Logitec after two months of "cleaning the balls"...
If MacBook and iMac 20 will be the smallest/cheapest Apples available -- they'd better forget about switchers, education, home users and focus completeley on new white&nerdy $1000 iPhone models...
When Jobs returned, Apple had recently lost a billion dollars in one year. Things had to be slashed and Apple needed to return to its core business, computer hardware, to return to profitability.
Unprofitable business had to be slashed.
But, Apple dropped $1.5 billion a year in profitable products. That was NOT good business.
Quote:
Since then, with the success of the iMac and the iPod, Apple is a healthy company again. I see no reason now why Apple should not offer more variety in their line of computers as well as their consumer electronics products such as the phone and the aTV. Personally, I don't think the phone and aTV will turn out to be such huge successes as the iMac and iPod, but we'll see.
Apple kept losing business the first four, or so, years after Jobs came back. The iMac line, at best, held the line. They didn't sell nearly as many as people think. Just look at the numbers.
The luck of the iPod was what finally changed things around. Even Jobs didn't think it would sell so well. He even said that they expected it to be a successful, but modest addition.
What did do well, was Apple listening to its customers (finally!), and putting it into the PC world as well, and combining it with iTunes, which was also an idea floated around long before Apple actually did it.
I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe ) still they do them to put in the boxes with Mac Pros neverminding that users ultimately will buy MicroSoft or Logitec after two months of "cleaning the balls"...
I've been using my mighty mouse for a year and haven't "cleaned the balls" yet, whatever that means.
I've been using my mighty mouse for a year and haven't "cleaned the balls" yet, whatever that means.
I do not believe it!
Mine went useless after 8 months of cleaning-the-ball (and my wife constantly complaining that buttons do not work properly in her favourite Mine Sweeper widget), so it was replaced by some cheap laser Logitech (that still works as expected)...
They came out with it as a G4 machine, which at the time was a very expensive situation. If they came out with it as a G3, then is could have been as much as 30% cheaper.
Yeah, right. The processor was 30% of the cost...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I can tell you from personal experience that ad agencies, Tv stations, and design houses were buying Apple's Studio monitors in great numbers, as were video, photo, and graphic pros. That was the market the monitors were intended for, and Apple was very successful in selling monitors into it. If you knew anything about them, and you can look it up now, before you reply, you will see that they WERE innovative.
I had two - no doubt they were innovative, but history also showed they were becoming commodities. Good choice to cut them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
By your theory, Apple immediately came out with new printers (they never did again), new scanners (ditto there too), and new, competitive monitors (forget it!).
None of that happened.
You misunderstand - by my theory, another good choice to cut and run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
If Apple was aspiring to be an HP, you are right. Fortunately, Apple's direction is not towards commodities - low margin, high volume, cut-throat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As Apple becomes a bigger company, they will have to have more products.
It will take the failure of just one highly touted product to send Apple's stock into a tailspin otherwise. Understanding that is just good business.
Fortunately Apple doesn't have your vision. "ADD" is your analysis, but it's more straight-forward than that - innovation which means a very motivated work force. This allows the corporate culture to be innovative, and not stiffling like MS and Adobe . You may be right about the stock price and a lemon, but that's the edge that makes Apple and the Apple brand a leader.
But the Mac Pro takes a more display space and is a very niche product.
The Mac Mini take very little space to display and at it's low cost can almost be made as an impulse purchase and should be on display to switchers etc. I'm sure the Mini sells in far higher volumes in high-street shops than the Mac Pro 8-core does.
Very little difference when you attach them to a big monitor as Apple always do.
My point was that just because one store doesn't have them on display, or they were missed, doesn't mean the entirety of Apple hasn't got them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
There are good reasons for flash based storage in a portable: power and space saving. I see no such reason to use expensive flash storage in a desktop computer, unless Steve Jobs really want's to make a Mac shuffle that will clip to his pants pocket.
Speaking as someone with a Mac SE/30 running off a 4GB Compact Flash card, I can tell you there's reasons to do it. Silence being the main one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
I don't think it sold well outside of the USA though. Back when the Quicktake came out I had a Canon Ion. That had been out a couple of years before the Apple and it was cheaper here in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zlyden
Yes, shure, it is stupid for Apple to compete head-to-head in low-priced monitor market. I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe ) still they do them to put in the boxes with Mac Pros neverminding that users ultimately will buy MicroSoft or Logitec after two months of "cleaning the balls"...
Apart from the ball cleaning, it's my 3rd favourite mouse of all time after the wireless Pro mouse with no buttons and number 1 being Microsoft's second mouse from the 1980s designed by Frog Design for them. It would be number 1 if they got rid of the ball or just added the second button and laser optics to the previous generation Pro Wireless mouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zlyden
If MacBook and iMac 20 will be the smallest/cheapest Apples available -- they'd better forget about switchers, education, home users and focus completeley on new white&nerdy $1000 iPhone models...
And forget about normal business users too who don't require laptops or large screens. A number of my clients use eMacs and 17" iMacs for their office functions, as well as Mac Minis. Apple exiting the utilitarian end of the market is Apple exiting the business market too. For that reason I can't see it happening and I think AI are just plain wrong if they think these models are being killed off and not replaced.
The cpu alone wasn't 30% of the cost. But, the higher spec memory needed at the time to support it was part of it. So was the faster bus.
Your lack of knowledge of the machine isn't helping your sarcasm much.
Quote:
I had two - no doubt they were innovative, but history also showed they were becoming commodities. Good choice to cut them.
More lack of knowledge. If you had two, you would know more about them then you do.
Quote:
You misunderstand - by my theory, another good choice to cut and run.
Then it's a bad theory.
Quote:
If Apple was aspiring to be an HP, you are right. Fortunately, Apple's direction is not towards commodities - low margin, high volume, cut-throat.
But, except for the heavy iron, and commercial services that Hp offers, Apple IS trying to become an Hp. Both companies are moving heavily into the consumer space. Hp even resold iPods.
Quote:
Fortunately Apple doesn't have your vision. "ADD" is your analysis, but it's more straight-forward than that - innovation which means a very motivated work force. This allows the corporate culture to be innovative, and not stiffling like MS and Adobe . You may be right about the stock price and a lemon, but that's the edge that makes Apple and the Apple brand a leader.
They don't seem to have yours either.
Apple will continue adding product lines as soon as it settles in with the new phone line. Jobs said that they wouldn't have new lines for a while after this one, but that they will arrive.
I don't think it sold well outside of the USA though. Back when the Quicktake came out I had a Canon Ion. That had been out a couple of years before the Apple and it was cheaper here in Europe.
Maybe, but it didn't have to. The first two or three years of the digital camers "revolution" wasn't seen much outside of the US, though Japan caught up quickly.
Comments
I did mean what I wrote. In the case that you quoted, it was the third-party RAM that had failed. Why should Apple cover that? If you replace RAM in your Mac, it can be a good idea to hold on to said RAM, so that if anything goes wrong, you can swap the original RAM back in. If the problem then goes away, you know you need the third-party RAM replaced, and if the problem remains, it's something else and the machine can be returned to Apple.
I find it odd that you are trying to prove that adding third party RAM voids your warranty, yet you quote information from Apple which categorically states that that is not the case ("Adding DRAM, VRAM or other user-installable upgrade or expansion products to an Apple computer is not considered a modification to that Apple product).
One thing I know to be true, is that even if you install a third party upgrade, as allowed by Apple, if that upgrade is seen as having caused damage to the Apple hardware, your warrantee may be voided, and you will be charged for the repair.
I have seen this happen.
The vast majority of people never upgrade their machines, and that goes for PC people as well.
That's right. I'm amazed when I talk to the average person about computers, how many still don't understand the difference between memory and hard disk space. Many would buy a new computer before thinking about adding more memory because they simply don't know what adding more memory means.
From what I've read of Apple policy, I would concur with both of you.
.
As part of that, from Apple's warrantee:
This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products;
(d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider;
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS WARRANTY AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, APPLE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION,
This comes directly from this page on Aple's site:
http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/hardware.html
There may be other, more specifice limitations for specific products.
OMFG
I'd rather swallow live frogs than let that within one mile of my
beaaauutiful, beautiful, preccciousss MacBook Core2Duo 2.0ghz 2gbRAM BLACK.
Yep, its hideous. And its because Apple wont design for a dock as they should.
Vinea
Even if a product is doing well, such as the iPod mini, they'll kill it in favor of something better (the iPod nano). I hope that's what will happen if the rumor about the death of the Mac mini is true.
I don't mind if they do that. If they really do have a better product, then by all means, release it.
But when Apple discontinued the Cube, for example, it was only selling about 50 thousand a month.***
Many people had good reasons for why the sales were low. If Apple had listened to those reasons, the product could very well have achieved a respectable sales quota.
But, Apple discontinued it instead. They had NO replacement in the wings.
When jobs took over, he cut the very profitable, and popular, (according to financial analysts at the time) monitor, printer, and scanner divisions. That put Apple in a more precarious position that it would have been.
Later, after their newer crt monitors had been very successful, among the PC industry as well as Apple users, he discontinued them to great outcry, for the very high priced line of LCD models, which Apple sold far fewer of.
There are more.
***
EDIT: I just noticed an error here. It should have been 50 thousand a QUARTER.
Sorry for the confusion.
Manchester had two on Saturday on display and no 8 core Mac Pro, ergo the Mac Pro 8 core is dead and the sky is falling in.
Really!
But the Mac Pro takes a more display space and is a very niche product.
The Mac Mini take very little space to display and at it's low cost can almost be made as an impulse purchase and should be on display to switchers etc. I'm sure the Mini sells in far higher volumes in high-street shops than the Mac Pro 8-core does.
The iMac and the mini are next in line for a major overhaul. We will see the mini continue but only in a slimmed down, flash-based form as a proper compliment to the AppleTV. Now if they could only drop the price.
There are good reasons for flash based storage in a portable: power and space saving. I see no such reason to use expensive flash storage in a desktop computer, unless Steve Jobs really want's to make a Mac shuffle that will clip to his pants pocket.
I don't mind if they do that. If they really do have a better product, then by all means, release it.
But when Apple discontinued the Cube, for example, it was only selling about 50 thousand a month.
Many people had good reasons for why the sales were low. If Apple had listened to those reasons, the product could very well have achieved a respectable sales quota.
But, Apple discontinued it instead. They had NO replacement in the wings.
When jobs took over, he cut the very profitable, and popular, (according to financial analysts at the time) monitor, printer, and scanner divisions. That put Apple in a more precarious position that it would have been.
Later, after their newer crt monitors had been very successful, among the PC industry as well as Apple users, he discontinued them to great outcry, for the very high priced line of LCD models, which Apple sold far fewer of.
There are more.
Is that the best you got?
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
Since then, with the success of the iMac and the iPod, Apple is a healthy company again. I see no reason now why Apple should not offer more variety in their line of computers as well as their consumer electronics products such as the phone and the aTV. Personally, I don't think the phone and aTV will turn out to be such huge successes as the iMac and iPod, but we'll see.
Is that the best you got?
What is that nutty comment supposed to mean?
You have nothing to say, so you write that?
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
If you were around for those discussions, you would have seen some good analysis.
Apple came out with a completely upgradable machine, which they then failed to advertise as one.
They came out with it as a G4 machine, which at the time was a very expensive situation. If they came out with it as a G3, then is could have been as much as 30% cheaper.
Those were two of the biggest reasons, but there were others as well.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
That's an narrow minded statement.
You think I was the only one to notice this, and comment badly about it?
You would be very wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that ad agencies, Tv stations, and design houses were buying Apple's Studio monitors in great numbers, as were video, photo, and graphic pros. That was the market the monitors were intended for, and Apple was very successful in selling monitors into it. If you knew anything about them, and you can look it up now, before you reply, you will see that they WERE innovative.
By your theory, Apple immediately came out with new printers (they never did again), new scanners (ditto there too), and new, competitive monitors (forget it!).
None of that happened.
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
As Apple becomes a bigger company, they will have to have more products.
It will take the failure of just one highly touted product to send Apple's stock into a tailspin otherwise. Understanding that is just good business.
Is that the best you got?
What were those great reasons for the cube? Besides lowering the price? Keep in mind that the cube just made the same margin as a PowerMac, so the price could not be lowered.
So your vision of Apple is that Apple competes head-to-head with ViewSonic, Sony, etc on monitors? And HP, Epson, & Canon on scanners/printers? Then your vision and Apple's appear to be different, because you are attracted to commodities that require hugh investments to stay competitive, while Apple invests in innovative products that allow high margins. Maybe Apple should turn into Gateway?
I vote for Steve Jobs approach - let the followers churn out the commodities.
This time it is different: most of us (and possibly they == Apple should understand it too, if they anygood on marketing) do not need Xeon 8-core superpower and 16 GB of very expensive full-whatervered RAM. So, rereleasing low-priced Cube is much safer now...
Just make it: Core2Duo 2.66 or Core2Quad 2.4 (socket 775), 4GB RAM standard max, standard SATA 3.5 disk, graphic card (not integrated crappy!)...
***
Yes, shure, it is stupid for Apple to compete head-to-head in low-priced monitor market. I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe
If MacBook and iMac 20 will be the smallest/cheapest Apples available -- they'd better forget about switchers, education, home users and focus completeley on new white&nerdy $1000 iPhone models...
When Jobs returned, Apple had recently lost a billion dollars in one year. Things had to be slashed and Apple needed to return to its core business, computer hardware, to return to profitability.
Unprofitable business had to be slashed.
But, Apple dropped $1.5 billion a year in profitable products. That was NOT good business.
Since then, with the success of the iMac and the iPod, Apple is a healthy company again. I see no reason now why Apple should not offer more variety in their line of computers as well as their consumer electronics products such as the phone and the aTV. Personally, I don't think the phone and aTV will turn out to be such huge successes as the iMac and iPod, but we'll see.
Apple kept losing business the first four, or so, years after Jobs came back. The iMac line, at best, held the line. They didn't sell nearly as many as people think. Just look at the numbers.
The luck of the iPod was what finally changed things around. Even Jobs didn't think it would sell so well. He even said that they expected it to be a successful, but modest addition.
What did do well, was Apple listening to its customers (finally!), and putting it into the PC world as well, and combining it with iTunes, which was also an idea floated around long before Apple actually did it.
I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe
I've been using my mighty mouse for a year and haven't "cleaned the balls" yet, whatever that means.
I've been using my mighty mouse for a year and haven't "cleaned the balls" yet, whatever that means.
The ball on my daughter's won't turn anymore, and it's a real pain to try to clean.
Another case of form over function.
I've been using my mighty mouse for a year and haven't "cleaned the balls" yet, whatever that means.
I do not believe it!
Mine went useless after 8 months of cleaning-the-ball (and my wife constantly complaining that buttons do not work properly in her favourite Mine Sweeper widget), so it was replaced by some cheap laser Logitech (that still works as expected)...
What is that nutty comment supposed to mean?
They came out with it as a G4 machine, which at the time was a very expensive situation. If they came out with it as a G3, then is could have been as much as 30% cheaper.
Yeah, right. The processor was 30% of the cost...
I can tell you from personal experience that ad agencies, Tv stations, and design houses were buying Apple's Studio monitors in great numbers, as were video, photo, and graphic pros. That was the market the monitors were intended for, and Apple was very successful in selling monitors into it. If you knew anything about them, and you can look it up now, before you reply, you will see that they WERE innovative.
I had two - no doubt they were innovative, but history also showed they were becoming commodities. Good choice to cut them.
By your theory, Apple immediately came out with new printers (they never did again), new scanners (ditto there too), and new, competitive monitors (forget it!).
None of that happened.
You misunderstand - by my theory, another good choice to cut and run.
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
If Apple was aspiring to be an HP, you are right. Fortunately, Apple's direction is not towards commodities - low margin, high volume, cut-throat.
As Apple becomes a bigger company, they will have to have more products.
It will take the failure of just one highly touted product to send Apple's stock into a tailspin otherwise. Understanding that is just good business.
Fortunately Apple doesn't have your vision. "ADD" is your analysis, but it's more straight-forward than that - innovation which means a very motivated work force. This allows the corporate culture to be innovative, and not stiffling like MS and Adobe
But the Mac Pro takes a more display space and is a very niche product.
The Mac Mini take very little space to display and at it's low cost can almost be made as an impulse purchase and should be on display to switchers etc. I'm sure the Mini sells in far higher volumes in high-street shops than the Mac Pro 8-core does.
Very little difference when you attach them to a big monitor as Apple always do.
My point was that just because one store doesn't have them on display, or they were missed, doesn't mean the entirety of Apple hasn't got them.
There are good reasons for flash based storage in a portable: power and space saving. I see no such reason to use expensive flash storage in a desktop computer, unless Steve Jobs really want's to make a Mac shuffle that will clip to his pants pocket.
Speaking as someone with a Mac SE/30 running off a 4GB Compact Flash card, I can tell you there's reasons to do it. Silence being the main one.
Even Apple's digital camera, one of the very first on the market, which sold well, and was considered to be a bargain at the time, was discontinued after the second model. Apple could have owned a fair part of that market if they tried, it had sold well.
I don't think it sold well outside of the USA though. Back when the Quicktake came out I had a Canon Ion. That had been out a couple of years before the Apple and it was cheaper here in Europe.
Yes, shure, it is stupid for Apple to compete head-to-head in low-priced monitor market. I never understood why the make these Mighty Mouses myself (worst mouse ever in this world and universe
Apart from the ball cleaning, it's my 3rd favourite mouse of all time after the wireless Pro mouse with no buttons and number 1 being Microsoft's second mouse from the 1980s designed by Frog Design for them. It would be number 1 if they got rid of the ball or just added the second button and laser optics to the previous generation Pro Wireless mouse.
If MacBook and iMac 20 will be the smallest/cheapest Apples available -- they'd better forget about switchers, education, home users and focus completeley on new white&nerdy $1000 iPhone models...
And forget about normal business users too who don't require laptops or large screens. A number of my clients use eMacs and 17" iMacs for their office functions, as well as Mac Minis. Apple exiting the utilitarian end of the market is Apple exiting the business market too. For that reason I can't see it happening and I think AI are just plain wrong if they think these models are being killed off and not replaced.
Yeah, right. The processor was 30% of the cost...
The cpu alone wasn't 30% of the cost. But, the higher spec memory needed at the time to support it was part of it. So was the faster bus.
Your lack of knowledge of the machine isn't helping your sarcasm much.
I had two - no doubt they were innovative, but history also showed they were becoming commodities. Good choice to cut them.
More lack of knowledge. If you had two, you would know more about them then you do.
You misunderstand - by my theory, another good choice to cut and run.
Then it's a bad theory.
If Apple was aspiring to be an HP, you are right. Fortunately, Apple's direction is not towards commodities - low margin, high volume, cut-throat.
But, except for the heavy iron, and commercial services that Hp offers, Apple IS trying to become an Hp. Both companies are moving heavily into the consumer space. Hp even resold iPods.
Fortunately Apple doesn't have your vision. "ADD" is your analysis, but it's more straight-forward than that - innovation which means a very motivated work force. This allows the corporate culture to be innovative, and not stiffling like MS and Adobe
They don't seem to have yours either.
Apple will continue adding product lines as soon as it settles in with the new phone line. Jobs said that they wouldn't have new lines for a while after this one, but that they will arrive.
I don't think it sold well outside of the USA though. Back when the Quicktake came out I had a Canon Ion. That had been out a couple of years before the Apple and it was cheaper here in Europe.
Maybe, but it didn't have to. The first two or three years of the digital camers "revolution" wasn't seen much outside of the US, though Japan caught up quickly.