You're absolutely correct about that. AND, the college, of course, doesn't offer perks -vacation time, holidays,health insurance, etc. - to those adjunct profs. Further, it doesn't even have to pay half FICA, because adjuncts are not covered by Soc. Sec. Adjuncts pay into some stock investment program called TIAA-Cref. The college pays nothing. Adjuncts tell me that they could never retire on the minute am't their investments pay.
And when stock prices drop, like now, adjuncts are losing money.
This is the same type of program that the Federal Gov't. wants to foist on the US worker. He could possibly work all his life putting money into investments that would not fund his retirement. But that would be great for big business. They would be free from paying their half of FICA.
I'm sorry. I get carried away when I think about how the middle class is being squeezed. My bad.
Er...your adjuncts aren't in it as a real job are they? While I agree about the middle class being squeezed all the adjuncts I know either have a day job or are doing it prior to finding a tenure track job or are doing it short term in between other gigs for "fun".
For these folks the lack of benefits kinda comes with the territory.
The majority of adjuncts I know they do it because they like teaching. The money is soooo small it's not worth considering.
Now you say, Ah, but you forget, you can also use the macbook as a notebook whereas it is not so with the iMac. This is true, but you would also be changing your argument from a MB as a desktop replacement to a MB as a, well... MB.
If I said $400 something I misquoted. i haven't gone back to look but I'm recalling $500 something. But heck, I dunno...but I am looking at some really inexpensive 22" monitors so maybe $400 something is possible.
If you only need a desktop, the iMac is cheaper. Of course, that said, if you only need a computer and not OSX i can build a cheaper and more capable mid-tower running windows than the iMac.
APPLE could build a cheaper and more capable mid-tower than the iMac. But it doesn't and it's still growing well. Likewise, a MB + montior solution is sub-optimal vs an iMac but probably no more a death knell than the lack of a mid-tower in Apple's lineup.
Again, I am not saying I think the iMac is going to get axed any year soon.
Tier 1 does not include a Top 5 worldwide manufacturer because they make other stuff besides computers?
Of course it does, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway are all tier 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple isn't just a computer company anymore either regardless of what you personally think of aTV and the iPhone. Dropping "computer" from their name is a big hint I suppose.
I agree to a point. They are not as invested in other forms of technology like Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic. Not even close
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Gee and HP makes printers, PDAs, calculators, TVs, digital cameras and scanners. Have to eliminate them as Tier 1 computer company as well. Heck, now that we've eliminated #2, #4 and #5 that leaves whom? Dell and Gateway as the only Tier 1 computer makers.
Uh No. Dell and HP primary business are computer systems, Dell and HP even make plasma tvs but you even know anyone that owns one, I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Oh please. What? Are you going to also say that neither Sony or MS qualifies as Tier 1 console makers and only Nintendo should count?
You attempt to use terms that you don't even understand. Your merging companies that make computers systems their primary business with companies that are fully invested across a full range or consumer electronics.
Companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer need to sell computer to keep the doors open, Companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba do not.
You keep using Toshiba as your example its an invalid example. A company can also be a tier 1 computer maker and sell other products.
Besides non of this is the actual point. The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
Apple or should I say Steve Jobs still thinks he can create a product and play in his own arena, that just doesnt float anymore.
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS. If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS.
There's that whole iPod+iTunes business, which has nothing to do with OS X. I hear that's doing well lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
Of course, except for the case... and the features... and the design... and the way those work together. Same thing, really. I mean, they're all made out of the same atoms anyway.
There's that whole iPod+iTunes business, which has nothing to do with OS X. I hear that's doing well lately.
Of course, except for the case... and the features... and the design... and the way those work together. Same thing, really. I mean, they're all made out of the same atoms anyway.
Of couse ipods and itunes will do well for a good while, unless people truly get tired of DRM restrictions.
The features and the way they all work together have very little to do with the actual hardware in fact mac laptops on average have a fairly high failure rate because of heat issues. Not to mention did you notice that all the laptops across the board had battery issues, thats because they all use the same hardware.
Macs work well because the software in most cases is a highly controlled bundle that was built to work together. Has nothing to do with hardware, macs work well because of software and how its controlled.
If Steve Jobs thought he really built hardware that was better than everyone else he wouldn't lock his OS to only run on Apple hardware.
Fine...a MBP is still cheaper than a MB + iMac by $500.
So is the elimination of the iMac line. We're speaking in hypotheticals so it certainly isn't unfair to stipulate that the elimination of the desktop line is possible if Apple offered the full range of mobile accessories as other major manufacturers.
No sorry. You don't get to constrain the discussion so much that the only possible outcome is the same as your own based on your preconcieved notions.
Your statement was that without a desktop line Apple would go out of business. There was no stipulation or boundry that new items in the lineup could not replace those desktops as long as they aren't desktops. Accessories, phones, laptops, tablets are all fair game.
I conceeded that without the Mac Pro then Apple would be in trouble but that the iMac is expendible.
You can agree with that statement (which would meet your original criteria as the Mac Pro would remain a desktop workstation in the lineup) or you can disagree that the iMac is expendible. It appears you disagree that the iMac is expendible. Hence the further discussion.
I believe, and I can go back and look, that the comment about mid-towers was that Apple has lived without a mid-tower for so long that it is a clear indicator that it is not required in the lineup. Therefore any assertion that because 90% of the market uses mid-towers that one is required of a computer company is false because it is untrue now. Apple doesn't have one. It is a computer company.
Likewise I can make the assertion that a computer company without a desktop CAN exist because i can point to one that happens to be a top 5 manufacturer. You can quibble that it exists because Dell and HP makes desktops but you certainly cannot assert that Toshiba does not exist.
Vinea
You twist the argument around.
Apple also hasn't had a dock for so long that most people forget they ever had one.
Your pointing out Toshiba simply doesn't matter. It's of no account.
Apple isn't a Windows company. Toshiba can exist because it IS a Windows company. People can buy Toshiba laptops, and Hp desktops. It doesn't matter.
Apple must sell both, because if a potential Apple customer wants a mid priced desktop, they MUST come to Apple.
I know you want to ignore that, and maybe you can. But we don't have to.
To say that a mid tower is not required because Apple hasn't had one in the lineup for so long is a preposterous statement. How do you know that it isn't desirable? You don't. You point to a thread where a few might say they want a 20" luggable, but you ignore all of the people who have been calling for a mid tower? That's very selective.
Your argument is not valid because you base it on a hypothetical product that doesn't exist. That, and the fact that only Apple produces OS X based products, means that what happens in the PC world can't happen here.
And, if you're correct, and the iMac is so undesirable compared to Apple's portables, as I've said, and you denied (but then repeated), then the reason why Apple sells so many portables compared to laptops is not, as you assert, because people want Mac laptops to such an overwhelming extent, but because they want a Mac, and the only desirable ones that don't cost an arm and a leg are the Mac Books, which are the much bigger selling of the two laptop lines Apple has (because it's cheaper).
And so don't say that I've constrained the discussion, because you're the one who attempted to do so. If I grant you the possiubility of a dock, then you must grant me the possibility of a mid tower.
But, no tower, no dock. You can't have it your way.
Your other incorrect assumption is that everyone who buys an iMac want a MB or MBP as well. Most don't.
Of course it does, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway are all tier 1
Actually they aren't. HP and Dell are Tier 1. Acer, Toshiba, Gateway and Lenovo are arguably Tier 2.
Quote:
You attempt to use terms that you don't even understand. Your merging companies that make computers systems their primary business with companies that are fully invested across a full range or consumer electronics.
Fine genius. You find me a credible source that says that Tier 1 compter category is limited ONLY to those companies that ONLY make computers as a primary business.
Quote:
Companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer need to sell computer to keep the doors open, Companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba do not.
Which means very little when it comes to talking about successful computer makers. Saying that Toshiba is not a successful computer manufacturer is nutty.
Quote:
You keep using Toshiba as your example its an invalid example. A company can also be a tier 1 computer maker and sell other products.
Repeated assertion doesn't make it true.
From news articles the Tier 1 vendors today are Dell and HP. Every one else in the top 5 list is arguably Tier 2. That means Acer, Gateway, Apple, Lenovo, Toshiba. Some folks consider everyone in the top 5 Tier 1. Sometimes they'll drop Toshiba since Acer and Lenovo both have twice its share.
Gateway sure as hell doesn't qualify as Tier 1 anymore if you aren't counting Toshiba Tier 1. Another couple qtrs at this rate and Apple, Toshiba and Acer will push it out of Top 5 in the US.
If Toshiba magically captured 25% market share it would be Tier 1 regardless of its other business. Heck, if it broke double digits folks would consider it Tier 1 as the very clear #3 maker.
So if Toshiba isn't Tier 1...so what? Neither is Apple and Toshiba remains bigger.
Quote:
Besides non of this is the actual point. The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
So far behind the curve that it's gaining share...starting to piss them off so much they've stopped buying or buying more than ever? How odd for unhappy people to start buying MORE stuff.
Quote:
Apple or should I say Steve Jobs still thinks he can create a product and play in his own arena, that just doesnt float anymore.
The market disagrees. That's both stock market and computer market.
Quote:
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS. If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
Apple is a systems company that realizes most of its profits from hardware. Slapping OSX on a whitebox doesn't translate into the same user experience.
Don't make me go back and quote every line you've posted. I've twisted WHAT? Be specific.
Quote:
Apple also hasn't had a dock for so long that most people forget they ever had one.
So? Repeating that docks don't sell doesn't make it true. If docks don't sell then Dell, HP, etc would have none either. Saying because Apple doesn't sell a dock means that no one wants to buy any is the same as saying because Apple doesn't sell a mid-tower that no one wants to buy any.
Both statements are CLEARLY FALSE.
Quote:
Your pointing out Toshiba simply doesn't matter. It's of no account.
Well...that's definitive. You say it doesn't matter so it must be true. Not.
Quote:
Apple isn't a Windows company. Toshiba can exist because it IS a Windows company. People can buy Toshiba laptops, and Hp desktops. It doesn't matter.
Apple must sell both, because if a potential Apple customer wants a mid priced desktop, they MUST come to Apple.
And if a potential Apple customer wants a mid-tower they MUST come to Apple. Oh wait. They can't and yet Apple survives. So long as you can meet the core needs of a market segment then Apple can serve it. Apple has already PROVEN that it need not be in the optimum form factor or the lowest cost.
Quote:
I know you want to ignore that, and maybe you can. But we don't have to.
Ignore what?
First: I've shown that a MBP can fullfill every function of a iMac albeit at higher cost. Higher cost almost defines Apple.
Second: I've shown that the market for laptops is sufficiently large that Apple can continue to grow SIMPLY on laptop sales. Toshiba does count as a) it sells only laptops and b) its bigger.
Third: OSX is an ENABLING feature of going mobile. Not a hindrance. If Apple only made mobile products then you are constrained to buying ONLY mobile products. Just as you are constrained today to buy only laptops, AIOs, SFF and workstations and no mid-towers.
Quote:
To say that a mid tower is not required because Apple hasn't had one in the lineup for so long is a preposterous statement. How do you know that it isn't desirable? You don't.
Desirable != required. Who's changing/twisting the argument now? Apple doesn't have a mid-tower in its line up and its market share is increasing and its stock price is stellar. IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T REQUIRED.
Nice to have? Perhaps. Jobs disagrees. If Jobs decides that the iMac is dead tomorrow, well heck, it may not be optimal but Apple sure will survive.
Quote:
You point to a thread where a few might say they want a 20" luggable, but you ignore all of the people who have been calling for a mid tower? That's very selective.
Not at all. I never said that a mid-tower is not desirable EVEN in the mid-tower discussion. I have always said they aren't REQUIRED because, I dunno, they aren't and there's proof every time you open the Apple Store page.
YOU asked who wants one. I pointed you at a thread. Go argue with them whether a heavy desktop replacement is desirable. I personally don't care that much.
Quote:
Your argument is not valid because you base it on a hypothetical product that doesn't exist. That, and the fact that only Apple produces OS X based products, means that what happens in the PC world can't happen here.
Yes, because monopoly control gives you LESS power over a market place rather than more. Say what?
Find me a top 5 computer company that sells only AIOs and SFF desktops. There aren't any. APPLE ALREADY DOES WHAT THE LARGER WINDOWS COMPUTER MARKET CAN NOT DO. Saying that a Windows company has more product flexibility than Apple goes against evidence as easily found as http://store.apple.com. Apple sells millions of AIOs. No one else CAN.
OSX sells iMacs. Not as much the other way around.
OSX can't beat windows but it sure as hell gives Apple massive flexibility in its computer lineup in comparison to its windows competitors.
Quote:
And, if you're correct, and the iMac is so undesirable compared to Apple's portables, as I've said, and you denied (but then repeated), then the reason why Apple sells so many portables compared to laptops is not, as you assert, because people want Mac laptops to such an overwhelming extent, but because they want a Mac, and the only desirable ones that don't cost an arm and a leg are the Mac Books, which are the much bigger selling of the two laptop lines Apple has (because it's cheaper).
Your paragraph attempts to put contradictory words in my mouth.
These are my statements:
The iMac is less desirable than xMac mid-towers.
The iMac represents lower value than most windows desktops.
The Apple laptops represent better value then iMacs when compared to windows counterparts. In some cases Apple laptops are equally good values in comparison to their windows counterparts.
One reason that Apple sells so many more laptops than desktops is due to the fact that laptops sales are growing very quickly. You can see this in Toshiba's growth numbers as well as that of Acer and HP mobile growth numbers. All exceed desktop growth numbers.
That Apple's desktops are strange form factors (SFF and AIOs) are a secondary factor. Even if Apple had mid-towers you would STILL see laptop sales growing far faster than desktop sales.
Finally, it is my opinion that Apple has optimized itself for laptop sales by using its desktop sales to subsidize laptop pricing. It uses merom and other laptop compnonents in the iMac to gain another 500,000 merom buys per qtr for larger discount from Intel. This translates to higher margins and/or lower notebook pricing at the expense of increased desktop sales. This is a strategic trade that Apple has deliberately made.
Quote:
And so don't say that I've constrained the discussion, because you're the one who attempted to do so. If I grant you the possiubility of a dock, then you must grant me the possibility of a mid tower.
But, no tower, no dock. You can't have it your way.
It's that simple.
Jeez, stop being a little baby. You completely miss the point to boot.
Fine no dock...its not that critical anyway although I do consider it a primary convience factor to make things Apple simple.
Even with no dock there STILL isn't anything the iMac can do that the MBP cannot and there are MANY things the MBP can do that the iMac cannot.
Namely anything you can stick into an expresscard slot. These exist. I can buy an eSATA card for my MBP today and connect it to an external eSATA chassis. I can attach a 1-4 slot PCIe chassis to my MBP.
Do that with an iMac.
The dock makes it convienent as it would be very easy to attach and detach. I can see that Apple wants to go wireless except for MagSafe and for 90% of users it can. The dock makes it easier for the rest of us that still end up tethered to cables.
I'm pretty sure griffin was talking about bricks-and-mortar stores. My bet is that on this occasion, new iMacs are being shipped as we type to US Apple Stores around the country, ready to be put on display after the announcement is made. International stores are not normally "updated" so quickly.
yep exactly that. It was seem somewhat strange if they dont update their stock in their local "brick and mortar" stores within a few days of announcement like 1 or 2. It would be somewhat misleading to still be showing older models while newer ones are available. Maybe if they cant restock they will just remove all the old imacs.
Mel, I think you are missing Vinea's point somewhat. He just made a small comment a couple of pages back, and has now been forced to defend it.
What he is saying is this: Apple could survive if it were to sell only laptops. I agree. However, I don't think that it would be a good business move.
So Vinea, you've already said you don't expect it to happen, but do you think that Apple going laptop-only at this point would actually be a good idea?
The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
Er... What???
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
What crap. Apple make the best laptops on the market at their respective price points. (With the proviso that the MacBook needs a minor update to deliver X3100 graphics, hopefully that'll happen tomorrow).
There are some frustrating gaps in their line-up, but that's a different matter.
So Vinea, you've already said you don't expect it to happen, but do you think that Apple going laptop-only at this point would actually be a good idea?
No, not so much. If they can sell half a million AIOs at 28%+ margins good for them.
I don't see how they can afford to lose the Mac Pro anyway so strictly speaking I don't think they can move totally to laptops unless they also want to dump the high end pro market.
Maybe when all our apps live in a Google cloud of services...
What crap. Apple make the best laptops on the market at their respective price points. (With the proviso that the MacBook needs a minor update to deliver X3100 graphics, hopefully that'll happen tomorrow).
I agree. I have a MBP and I haven't seen anything on the market that I would rather have even if I could run OSX on it. Same for the MB. It's still a damn nice looking machine with very competitive specs for it's price.
I agree. I have a MBP and I haven't seen anything on the market that I would rather have even if I could run OSX on it. Same for the MB. It's still a damn nice looking machine with very competitive specs for it's price.
I was in a Sony store the other day and the TZ150 is pretty sweet. If it were Santa Rosa, had mini-DVI and ran OSX like the MB it would be near perfect for this generation of technology.
That and a slightly better port replicator that also had expresscard.
I was in a Sony store the other day and the TZ150 is pretty sweet. If it were Santa Rosa, had mini-DVI and ran OSX like the MB it would be near perfect for this generation of technology.
That and a slightly better port replicator that also had expresscard.
Vinea
The Sonys are the best looking pc laptops, IMO. I haven't seen the one that you refer to but I'll go over to Sony's website and give it a look.
The Toshibas, Dells and HP/Compaqs really look inferior to me compared to MBPs and MBs.
Not to mention they all come with those nasty anal probes and have the disturbing tendency to rearrange your dirty laundry into circles while you sleep.
No, not so much. If they can sell half a million AIOs at 28%+ margins good for them.
I don't see how they can afford to lose the Mac Pro anyway so strictly speaking I don't think they can move totally to laptops unless they also want to dump the high end pro market.
The point that was made about the mid-Macs seems to keep coming up. And I think I just figured out why vinea keeps poo-pooing the concept.
He's seems like a laptop guy. Many laptop folks have a hard time undersatnding why any waste their money on anything that is not a laptop. I reserve the right to be wrong though...
I personally went with a refurb MacPro, for the very reason that there was not a xMac between an iMac, MacPro. I sure as hell didn't want a MB or MBP. I don't care how much you folks swear by them. :^)
I bought a Mac not because of some elitist ideal that Mac is the name brand to be spoken in the same breath as Mercedes and Coach. It is a superior OS no question. But I just don't see the value in forcing folks to buy overpriced hardware just for the opportunity of letting them use your OS.
All other things being equal, I'd buy Mac OS X and build my own spec'd tower from NewEgg. But of course that option is not avaliable. I'd be willing to wager that more folks than not would go that route, instead of having to settle for a cramped laptop or a minimally expandable iMac.
Comments
You're absolutely correct about that. AND, the college, of course, doesn't offer perks -vacation time, holidays,health insurance, etc. - to those adjunct profs. Further, it doesn't even have to pay half FICA, because adjuncts are not covered by Soc. Sec. Adjuncts pay into some stock investment program called TIAA-Cref. The college pays nothing. Adjuncts tell me that they could never retire on the minute am't their investments pay.
And when stock prices drop, like now, adjuncts are losing money.
This is the same type of program that the Federal Gov't. wants to foist on the US worker. He could possibly work all his life putting money into investments that would not fund his retirement. But that would be great for big business. They would be free from paying their half of FICA.
I'm sorry. I get carried away when I think about how the middle class is being squeezed. My bad.
Er...your adjuncts aren't in it as a real job are they? While I agree about the middle class being squeezed all the adjuncts I know either have a day job or are doing it prior to finding a tenure track job or are doing it short term in between other gigs for "fun".
For these folks the lack of benefits kinda comes with the territory.
The majority of adjuncts I know they do it because they like teaching. The money is soooo small it's not worth considering.
Vinea
Now you say, Ah, but you forget, you can also use the macbook as a notebook whereas it is not so with the iMac. This is true, but you would also be changing your argument from a MB as a desktop replacement to a MB as a, well... MB.
If I said $400 something I misquoted. i haven't gone back to look but I'm recalling $500 something. But heck, I dunno...but I am looking at some really inexpensive 22" monitors so maybe $400 something is possible.
If you only need a desktop, the iMac is cheaper. Of course, that said, if you only need a computer and not OSX i can build a cheaper and more capable mid-tower running windows than the iMac.
APPLE could build a cheaper and more capable mid-tower than the iMac. But it doesn't and it's still growing well. Likewise, a MB + montior solution is sub-optimal vs an iMac but probably no more a death knell than the lack of a mid-tower in Apple's lineup.
Again, I am not saying I think the iMac is going to get axed any year soon.
Vinea
Tier 1 does not include a Top 5 worldwide manufacturer because they make other stuff besides computers?
Of course it does, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway are all tier 1
Apple isn't just a computer company anymore either regardless of what you personally think of aTV and the iPhone. Dropping "computer" from their name is a big hint I suppose.
I agree to a point. They are not as invested in other forms of technology like Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic. Not even close
Gee and HP makes printers, PDAs, calculators, TVs, digital cameras and scanners. Have to eliminate them as Tier 1 computer company as well. Heck, now that we've eliminated #2, #4 and #5 that leaves whom? Dell and Gateway as the only Tier 1 computer makers.
Uh No. Dell and HP primary business are computer systems, Dell and HP even make plasma tvs but you even know anyone that owns one, I don't.
Oh please. What? Are you going to also say that neither Sony or MS qualifies as Tier 1 console makers and only Nintendo should count?
You attempt to use terms that you don't even understand. Your merging companies that make computers systems their primary business with companies that are fully invested across a full range or consumer electronics.
Companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer need to sell computer to keep the doors open, Companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba do not.
You keep using Toshiba as your example its an invalid example. A company can also be a tier 1 computer maker and sell other products.
Besides non of this is the actual point. The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
Apple or should I say Steve Jobs still thinks he can create a product and play in his own arena, that just doesnt float anymore.
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS. If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS.
There's that whole iPod+iTunes business, which has nothing to do with OS X. I hear that's doing well lately.
If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
Of course, except for the case... and the features... and the design... and the way those work together. Same thing, really. I mean, they're all made out of the same atoms anyway.
There's that whole iPod+iTunes business, which has nothing to do with OS X. I hear that's doing well lately.
Of course, except for the case... and the features... and the design... and the way those work together. Same thing, really. I mean, they're all made out of the same atoms anyway.
Of couse ipods and itunes will do well for a good while, unless people truly get tired of DRM restrictions.
The features and the way they all work together have very little to do with the actual hardware in fact mac laptops on average have a fairly high failure rate because of heat issues. Not to mention did you notice that all the laptops across the board had battery issues, thats because they all use the same hardware.
Macs work well because the software in most cases is a highly controlled bundle that was built to work together. Has nothing to do with hardware, macs work well because of software and how its controlled.
If Steve Jobs thought he really built hardware that was better than everyone else he wouldn't lock his OS to only run on Apple hardware.
Fine...a MBP is still cheaper than a MB + iMac by $500.
So is the elimination of the iMac line. We're speaking in hypotheticals so it certainly isn't unfair to stipulate that the elimination of the desktop line is possible if Apple offered the full range of mobile accessories as other major manufacturers.
No sorry. You don't get to constrain the discussion so much that the only possible outcome is the same as your own based on your preconcieved notions.
Your statement was that without a desktop line Apple would go out of business. There was no stipulation or boundry that new items in the lineup could not replace those desktops as long as they aren't desktops. Accessories, phones, laptops, tablets are all fair game.
I conceeded that without the Mac Pro then Apple would be in trouble but that the iMac is expendible.
You can agree with that statement (which would meet your original criteria as the Mac Pro would remain a desktop workstation in the lineup) or you can disagree that the iMac is expendible. It appears you disagree that the iMac is expendible. Hence the further discussion.
I believe, and I can go back and look, that the comment about mid-towers was that Apple has lived without a mid-tower for so long that it is a clear indicator that it is not required in the lineup. Therefore any assertion that because 90% of the market uses mid-towers that one is required of a computer company is false because it is untrue now. Apple doesn't have one. It is a computer company.
Likewise I can make the assertion that a computer company without a desktop CAN exist because i can point to one that happens to be a top 5 manufacturer. You can quibble that it exists because Dell and HP makes desktops but you certainly cannot assert that Toshiba does not exist.
Vinea
You twist the argument around.
Apple also hasn't had a dock for so long that most people forget they ever had one.
Your pointing out Toshiba simply doesn't matter. It's of no account.
Apple isn't a Windows company. Toshiba can exist because it IS a Windows company. People can buy Toshiba laptops, and Hp desktops. It doesn't matter.
Apple must sell both, because if a potential Apple customer wants a mid priced desktop, they MUST come to Apple.
I know you want to ignore that, and maybe you can. But we don't have to.
To say that a mid tower is not required because Apple hasn't had one in the lineup for so long is a preposterous statement. How do you know that it isn't desirable? You don't. You point to a thread where a few might say they want a 20" luggable, but you ignore all of the people who have been calling for a mid tower? That's very selective.
Your argument is not valid because you base it on a hypothetical product that doesn't exist. That, and the fact that only Apple produces OS X based products, means that what happens in the PC world can't happen here.
And, if you're correct, and the iMac is so undesirable compared to Apple's portables, as I've said, and you denied (but then repeated), then the reason why Apple sells so many portables compared to laptops is not, as you assert, because people want Mac laptops to such an overwhelming extent, but because they want a Mac, and the only desirable ones that don't cost an arm and a leg are the Mac Books, which are the much bigger selling of the two laptop lines Apple has (because it's cheaper).
And so don't say that I've constrained the discussion, because you're the one who attempted to do so. If I grant you the possiubility of a dock, then you must grant me the possibility of a mid tower.
But, no tower, no dock. You can't have it your way.
Your other incorrect assumption is that everyone who buys an iMac want a MB or MBP as well. Most don't.
It's that simple.
Of course it does, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway are all tier 1
Actually they aren't. HP and Dell are Tier 1. Acer, Toshiba, Gateway and Lenovo are arguably Tier 2.
You attempt to use terms that you don't even understand. Your merging companies that make computers systems their primary business with companies that are fully invested across a full range or consumer electronics.
Fine genius. You find me a credible source that says that Tier 1 compter category is limited ONLY to those companies that ONLY make computers as a primary business.
Companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer need to sell computer to keep the doors open, Companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba do not.
Which means very little when it comes to talking about successful computer makers. Saying that Toshiba is not a successful computer manufacturer is nutty.
You keep using Toshiba as your example its an invalid example. A company can also be a tier 1 computer maker and sell other products.
Repeated assertion doesn't make it true.
From news articles the Tier 1 vendors today are Dell and HP. Every one else in the top 5 list is arguably Tier 2. That means Acer, Gateway, Apple, Lenovo, Toshiba. Some folks consider everyone in the top 5 Tier 1. Sometimes they'll drop Toshiba since Acer and Lenovo both have twice its share.
Gateway sure as hell doesn't qualify as Tier 1 anymore if you aren't counting Toshiba Tier 1. Another couple qtrs at this rate and Apple, Toshiba and Acer will push it out of Top 5 in the US.
If Toshiba magically captured 25% market share it would be Tier 1 regardless of its other business. Heck, if it broke double digits folks would consider it Tier 1 as the very clear #3 maker.
So if Toshiba isn't Tier 1...so what? Neither is Apple and Toshiba remains bigger.
Besides non of this is the actual point. The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
So far behind the curve that it's gaining share...starting to piss them off so much they've stopped buying or buying more than ever? How odd for unhappy people to start buying MORE stuff.
Apple or should I say Steve Jobs still thinks he can create a product and play in his own arena, that just doesnt float anymore.
The market disagrees. That's both stock market and computer market.
The fact is as much as Apple would like to be a hardware company they aren't, at least not a good one. The only advantage they have and Steve Jobs is holding onto it for dear life is their OS. If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
Apple is a systems company that realizes most of its profits from hardware. Slapping OSX on a whitebox doesn't translate into the same user experience.
If that's all you want get Ubuntu.
Vinea
You twist the argument around.
Don't make me go back and quote every line you've posted. I've twisted WHAT? Be specific.
Apple also hasn't had a dock for so long that most people forget they ever had one.
So? Repeating that docks don't sell doesn't make it true. If docks don't sell then Dell, HP, etc would have none either. Saying because Apple doesn't sell a dock means that no one wants to buy any is the same as saying because Apple doesn't sell a mid-tower that no one wants to buy any.
Both statements are CLEARLY FALSE.
Your pointing out Toshiba simply doesn't matter. It's of no account.
Well...that's definitive. You say it doesn't matter so it must be true. Not.
Apple isn't a Windows company. Toshiba can exist because it IS a Windows company. People can buy Toshiba laptops, and Hp desktops. It doesn't matter.
Apple must sell both, because if a potential Apple customer wants a mid priced desktop, they MUST come to Apple.
And if a potential Apple customer wants a mid-tower they MUST come to Apple. Oh wait. They can't and yet Apple survives. So long as you can meet the core needs of a market segment then Apple can serve it. Apple has already PROVEN that it need not be in the optimum form factor or the lowest cost.
I know you want to ignore that, and maybe you can. But we don't have to.
Ignore what?
First: I've shown that a MBP can fullfill every function of a iMac albeit at higher cost. Higher cost almost defines Apple.
Second: I've shown that the market for laptops is sufficiently large that Apple can continue to grow SIMPLY on laptop sales. Toshiba does count as a) it sells only laptops and b) its bigger.
Third: OSX is an ENABLING feature of going mobile. Not a hindrance. If Apple only made mobile products then you are constrained to buying ONLY mobile products. Just as you are constrained today to buy only laptops, AIOs, SFF and workstations and no mid-towers.
To say that a mid tower is not required because Apple hasn't had one in the lineup for so long is a preposterous statement. How do you know that it isn't desirable? You don't.
Desirable != required. Who's changing/twisting the argument now? Apple doesn't have a mid-tower in its line up and its market share is increasing and its stock price is stellar. IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T REQUIRED.
Nice to have? Perhaps. Jobs disagrees. If Jobs decides that the iMac is dead tomorrow, well heck, it may not be optimal but Apple sure will survive.
You point to a thread where a few might say they want a 20" luggable, but you ignore all of the people who have been calling for a mid tower? That's very selective.
Not at all. I never said that a mid-tower is not desirable EVEN in the mid-tower discussion. I have always said they aren't REQUIRED because, I dunno, they aren't and there's proof every time you open the Apple Store page.
YOU asked who wants one. I pointed you at a thread. Go argue with them whether a heavy desktop replacement is desirable. I personally don't care that much.
Your argument is not valid because you base it on a hypothetical product that doesn't exist. That, and the fact that only Apple produces OS X based products, means that what happens in the PC world can't happen here.
Yes, because monopoly control gives you LESS power over a market place rather than more. Say what?
Find me a top 5 computer company that sells only AIOs and SFF desktops. There aren't any. APPLE ALREADY DOES WHAT THE LARGER WINDOWS COMPUTER MARKET CAN NOT DO. Saying that a Windows company has more product flexibility than Apple goes against evidence as easily found as http://store.apple.com. Apple sells millions of AIOs. No one else CAN.
OSX sells iMacs. Not as much the other way around.
OSX can't beat windows but it sure as hell gives Apple massive flexibility in its computer lineup in comparison to its windows competitors.
And, if you're correct, and the iMac is so undesirable compared to Apple's portables, as I've said, and you denied (but then repeated), then the reason why Apple sells so many portables compared to laptops is not, as you assert, because people want Mac laptops to such an overwhelming extent, but because they want a Mac, and the only desirable ones that don't cost an arm and a leg are the Mac Books, which are the much bigger selling of the two laptop lines Apple has (because it's cheaper).
Your paragraph attempts to put contradictory words in my mouth.
These are my statements:
The iMac is less desirable than xMac mid-towers.
The iMac represents lower value than most windows desktops.
The Apple laptops represent better value then iMacs when compared to windows counterparts. In some cases Apple laptops are equally good values in comparison to their windows counterparts.
One reason that Apple sells so many more laptops than desktops is due to the fact that laptops sales are growing very quickly. You can see this in Toshiba's growth numbers as well as that of Acer and HP mobile growth numbers. All exceed desktop growth numbers.
That Apple's desktops are strange form factors (SFF and AIOs) are a secondary factor. Even if Apple had mid-towers you would STILL see laptop sales growing far faster than desktop sales.
Finally, it is my opinion that Apple has optimized itself for laptop sales by using its desktop sales to subsidize laptop pricing. It uses merom and other laptop compnonents in the iMac to gain another 500,000 merom buys per qtr for larger discount from Intel. This translates to higher margins and/or lower notebook pricing at the expense of increased desktop sales. This is a strategic trade that Apple has deliberately made.
And so don't say that I've constrained the discussion, because you're the one who attempted to do so. If I grant you the possiubility of a dock, then you must grant me the possibility of a mid tower.
But, no tower, no dock. You can't have it your way.
It's that simple.
Jeez, stop being a little baby. You completely miss the point to boot.
Fine no dock...its not that critical anyway although I do consider it a primary convience factor to make things Apple simple.
Even with no dock there STILL isn't anything the iMac can do that the MBP cannot and there are MANY things the MBP can do that the iMac cannot.
Namely anything you can stick into an expresscard slot. These exist. I can buy an eSATA card for my MBP today and connect it to an external eSATA chassis. I can attach a 1-4 slot PCIe chassis to my MBP.
Do that with an iMac.
The dock makes it convienent as it would be very easy to attach and detach. I can see that Apple wants to go wireless except for MagSafe and for 90% of users it can. The dock makes it easier for the rest of us that still end up tethered to cables.
Vinea
I'm pretty sure griffin was talking about bricks-and-mortar stores. My bet is that on this occasion, new iMacs are being shipped as we type to US Apple Stores around the country, ready to be put on display after the announcement is made. International stores are not normally "updated" so quickly.
yep exactly that. It was seem somewhat strange if they dont update their stock in their local "brick and mortar" stores within a few days of announcement like 1 or 2. It would be somewhat misleading to still be showing older models while newer ones are available. Maybe if they cant restock they will just remove all the old imacs.
What he is saying is this: Apple could survive if it were to sell only laptops. I agree. However, I don't think that it would be a good business move.
So Vinea, you've already said you don't expect it to happen, but do you think that Apple going laptop-only at this point would actually be a good idea?
The point is, even talking moble computing Apple is so far behind the hardware curve its even starting to piss off diehard Apple fans.
Er... What???
If users could run OSX on any system they wanted only the most diehard Apple fanboy would be using Apple hardware which by the way except for the case is the same hardware found in any system today.
What crap. Apple make the best laptops on the market at their respective price points. (With the proviso that the MacBook needs a minor update to deliver X3100 graphics, hopefully that'll happen tomorrow).
There are some frustrating gaps in their line-up, but that's a different matter.
There is also a need for super graphics and multi HDs and quad cores. Movie houses, pro musicians, etc.
So Vinea, you've already said you don't expect it to happen, but do you think that Apple going laptop-only at this point would actually be a good idea?
No, not so much. If they can sell half a million AIOs at 28%+ margins good for them.
I don't see how they can afford to lose the Mac Pro anyway so strictly speaking I don't think they can move totally to laptops unless they also want to dump the high end pro market.
Maybe when all our apps live in a Google cloud of services...
Vinea
They need to keep producing desktops so they can keep getting unis to build super computers.
The 1U XServes have higher compute density than the Mac Pro. The Mini I dunno but they're getting a bit old.
Vinea
What crap. Apple make the best laptops on the market at their respective price points. (With the proviso that the MacBook needs a minor update to deliver X3100 graphics, hopefully that'll happen tomorrow).
I agree. I have a MBP and I haven't seen anything on the market that I would rather have even if I could run OSX on it. Same for the MB. It's still a damn nice looking machine with very competitive specs for it's price.
I agree. I have a MBP and I haven't seen anything on the market that I would rather have even if I could run OSX on it. Same for the MB. It's still a damn nice looking machine with very competitive specs for it's price.
I was in a Sony store the other day and the TZ150 is pretty sweet. If it were Santa Rosa, had mini-DVI and ran OSX like the MB it would be near perfect for this generation of technology.
That and a slightly better port replicator that also had expresscard.
Vinea
I was in a Sony store the other day and the TZ150 is pretty sweet. If it were Santa Rosa, had mini-DVI and ran OSX like the MB it would be near perfect for this generation of technology.
That and a slightly better port replicator that also had expresscard.
Vinea
The Sonys are the best looking pc laptops, IMO. I haven't seen the one that you refer to but I'll go over to Sony's website and give it a look.
The Toshibas, Dells and HP/Compaqs really look inferior to me compared to MBPs and MBs.
And Aliens are a little more expensive.
Not to mention they all come with those nasty anal probes and have the disturbing tendency to rearrange your dirty laundry into circles while you sleep.
No, not so much. If they can sell half a million AIOs at 28%+ margins good for them.
I don't see how they can afford to lose the Mac Pro anyway so strictly speaking I don't think they can move totally to laptops unless they also want to dump the high end pro market.
The point that was made about the mid-Macs seems to keep coming up. And I think I just figured out why vinea keeps poo-pooing the concept.
He's seems like a laptop guy. Many laptop folks have a hard time undersatnding why any waste their money on anything that is not a laptop. I reserve the right to be wrong though...
I personally went with a refurb MacPro, for the very reason that there was not a xMac between an iMac, MacPro. I sure as hell didn't want a MB or MBP. I don't care how much you folks swear by them. :^)
I bought a Mac not because of some elitist ideal that Mac is the name brand to be spoken in the same breath as Mercedes and Coach. It is a superior OS no question. But I just don't see the value in forcing folks to buy overpriced hardware just for the opportunity of letting them use your OS.
All other things being equal, I'd buy Mac OS X and build my own spec'd tower from NewEgg. But of course that option is not avaliable. I'd be willing to wager that more folks than not would go that route, instead of having to settle for a cramped laptop or a minimally expandable iMac.