Apple seeing "unprecedented" surge in MacBook demand

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 131
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else.



    Apple didn't get the X7900. The tear-downs show that the iMac uses an X7800. The Core 2 Duo Extreme processors have their processor multipliers unlocked, so OEMs are free to clock them at whichever rate they wish.
  • Reply 62 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post




    On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.



    Vinea



    Sure you do.
  • Reply 63 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Apple didn't get the X7900. The tear-downs show that the iMac uses an X7800. The Core 2 Duo Extreme processors have their processor multipliers unlocked, so OEMs are free to clock them at whichever rate they wish.



    Estimations I just read say that it's expected that 7900's will be clocked to 3.2 or 3.3 for gaming laptops.
  • Reply 64 of 131
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    I'm saying who cares? Do they HAVE to also do well on desktops to be successful? The answer is clearly NO.



    Indeed, no. But the point is that starting from their extremely low share of the computer market, there is the possibility of major upside to Apple gaining share. They could be even more successful than they are. Computers account for around 50% of Apple's profits; think about what could happen if Apple were as aggressive in their computer business as they are with the iPod and iPhone.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    If you folks want one so bad go build one like those tablet folks.



    But then it wouldn't be cheaper would it?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Fine. Tell me why Dell's margins suck in comparison to Apple's then.



    Because they sell a lot of desktops for less than $500, and a lot of laptops for less than $1100.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    And tell me how to get the minimum level of teh snappy on a $499 box with 28% margins because to get to that price range you're using a Semperon.



    Who gives a crap about "teh snappy"? People know that if they spend $499 on a computer, they aren't getting the most powerful thing in the world. If all they want to do is send e-mail and surf the web, that's all they need. If they want something more powerful/capable, they'd have the $599, $699, $799 etc. etc. options to choose from. On top of that, today's $499 computer is faster than a top-of-the (consumer) range computer from 3 years ago. Is everyone with a top-of-the range computer from 3 years ago having a miserable, useless computer experience? I think not.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.



    Oops, sorry. For the benefit of everyone else, I guess.
  • Reply 65 of 131
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You also have to look at history.



    When the Mac first came out, it was exactly the same. It was a closed appliance, which is exactly what Jobs wanted to sell.

    ...

    It didn't begin to sell well until after Jobs left, and Scully came out with the Mac II, with 8 slots.

    ...

    It's not that Apple is run by fools. It's just that Jobs has this history. And, as we all know, Jobs can be very stubborn about something.



    Woah. Someone just compared Jobs to Scully and prefers Scully. Speechless. Really. In this thread no less. One that validates Jobs' strategy. Huge irony.



    Okay...speechlessness over but the speech now resembles a Sam Kineson act. WTF are you thinking? You seriously think the Scully way is better? Sell your Apple shares and your macs now. You don't deserve any.



    Vinea
  • Reply 66 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Woah. Someone just compared Jobs to Scully and prefers Scully. Speechless. Really. In this thread no less. One that validates Jobs' strategy. Huge irony.



    Okay...speechlessness over but the speech now resembles a Sam Kineson act. WTF are you thinking? You seriously think the Scully way is better? Sell your Apple shares and your macs now. You don't deserve any.



    Vinea



    Not that I "prefer" Scully. He made his mistakes as well.



    The point you missed is that Jobs makes plenty of mistakes because of his "strong" ideas.



    It wasn't the iMac that got Apple back on track. It was the iPod.
  • Reply 67 of 131
    I think one thing should be kept in mind when considering why there isn't an xMac: Apple is trying to guide the industry in the direction it thinks it should go. Apple (Jobs in particular) really likes AIOs. The iMac is their headliner machine, and it's an AIO. MBs and MBPs are AIOs (completely all-in-one, even more so than desktops), and Apple is doing well with those. The Mac Pro? It's a concession to the extremely high end, because those users are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. And the Mac mini? I don't think it's really intended as anything but a machine that offers a low barrier to entry for switchers. In fact, according to rumor, the thing is constantly on the verge of being canceled. The fact that existing Mac users buy them is okay, but they'd really prefer established customers to buy either an iMac or a portable.



    If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.



    For the vast majority of customers, a computer really should be appliance-like. They buy the computer they want (usually not through a deep understanding of specs, but because of loosey-goosey ideas of what it can do for them), and they never upgrade the thing. People who really need to upgrade, or who need to use multiple video cards are really getting into the high-end range and just don't want to pay the price for it. Either that or they're spec whores and want to brag to all their geek friends, something Apple doesn't care about. Sure, other manufacturers may offer the ability to do this stuff at a lower price, but that's just because they have no vision of what the vast majority of customers really need -- they just assemble pieces and never stray from the status quo.



    Most people's needs are met perfectly by an AIO (including portables), and it is a much more elegant solution than the piecemeal conglomeration of parts that comprises a typical PC. Apple is about elegance, simplicity, and providing a good user experience. They're not about doing the "wrong" thing just to sell a couple more computers.
  • Reply 68 of 131
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.



    At the time there really wasn't a replacement. The time to drop something is generally when there's a viable replacement, not before. USB thumb drives weren't available then. The built-in optical drive wasn't a writer until a couple years later. At the time, modem was the primary means of connecting to the Internet, meaning FTP took forever. The iMac didn't have Firewire. USB drives of any kind didn't exist until a little later. There was no viable, portable means to move files. It seems as if most buyers of the early machines bought a USB floppy add-on when they were available anyways, so Apple saved $10 but the customer paid $40 later just to be able to move files.
  • Reply 69 of 131
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Who said that the xMac and the iMac would cost the same?



    Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.

    Quote:

    They certainly shouldn't, because if you take an AIO, replace the expensive laptop parts with cheaper desktop parts,



    and for the eleventy-billionth time, we do not know that for Apple, "desktop parts" are cheaper. Remember Apple orders a shitload of "laptop parts."

    Quote:

    and take out the monitor, that leaves you with a cheaper, yet more powerful, computer.



    What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.

    Quote:

    How much more evidence like that provided in this report do you need before you realise that Apple are failing to replicate their success in the laptop market in the desktop market?



    Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs. There is no proof whatsoever for that. In fact, it would be simple for Apple to gather that information from shoppers who did not buy a desktop. If they had learned that those shoppers did not buy a desktop because they wanted a tower, then Apple would have made a tower.

    Quote:

    They should keep the iMac to cater to those people and also offer a mini-tower to appeal to the other 95% of the desktop market.



    95%?? That's due to Windows, not the form factor of the hardware.



    As always, I don't care if Apple makes a midrange tower or not. If they think it can help market share, I'm all for it. I only buy towers myself.



    But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.
  • Reply 70 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    I think one thing should be kept in mind when considering why there isn't an xMac: Apple is trying to guide the industry in the direction it thinks it should go. Apple (Jobs in particular) really likes AIOs. The iMac is their headliner machine, and it's an AIO. MBs and MBPs are AIOs (completely all-in-one, even more so than desktops), and Apple is doing well with those. The Mac Pro? It's a concession to the extremely high end, because those users are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. And the Mac mini? I don't think it's really intended as anything but a machine that offers a low barrier to entry for switchers. In fact, according to rumor, the thing is constantly on the verge of being canceled. The fact that existing Mac users buy them is okay, but they'd really prefer established customers to buy either an iMac or a portable.



    If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.



    For the vast majority of customers, a computer really should be appliance-like. They buy the computer they want (usually not through a deep understanding of specs, but because of loosey-goosey ideas of what it can do for them), and they never upgrade the thing. People who really need to upgrade, or who need to use multiple video cards are really getting into the high-end range and just don't want to pay the price for it. Either that or they're spec whores and want to brag to all their geek friends, something Apple doesn't care about. Sure, other manufacturers may offer the ability to do this stuff at a lower price, but that's just because they have no vision of what the vast majority of customers really need -- they just assemble pieces and never stray from the status quo.



    Most people's needs are met perfectly by an AIO (including portables), and it is a much more elegant solution than the piecemeal conglomeration of parts that comprises a typical PC. Apple is about elegance, simplicity, and providing a good user experience. They're not about doing the "wrong" thing just to sell a couple more computers.



    I agree with everything you say, except for one part.



    What people want to buy is just important is what the need to buy.



    If people only bought what they needed, there would be few high quality goods available because people don't need them, they just want them.



    We might as well say the same thing about the Mac in general. People don't need them, but some want them.



    Do we need a more elegent OS? Do we need more elegent hardware?



    No, we don't. But are we happier with them? Yes, we are.



    So why not offer a product if people want, it if it will make them happy?



    Sometimes you can't force people to do things your way, so why bother?
  • Reply 71 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.



    I'm letting you know. The range I keep stating is $799 to $1,499.



    Someone else's range is from $499 to $1.999.



    Quote:

    and for the eleventy-billionth time, we do not know that for Apple, "desktop parts" are cheaper. Remember Apple orders a shitload of "laptop parts."



    Yes, we do. Desktop parts are cheaper. You can read that anywhere they make the comparison. Why do you think that laptops are so much more expensive than the equivalent desktops, even they have fewer hardware features?



    Why do you think that the 2.4 GHz iMac is faster than the 2.4 MBP? Not all of the iMac is laptop parts.



    Why do you think that a 24" iMac is so much cheaper than the 15.4" MBP?



    Quote:

    What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.



    CPU speeds are higher, bus speeds are higher, memory speeds are higher. More cache in the cpu's. Bigger, cheaper, faster HHD's.



    Not to mention the gpu's of course.



    And, many customers do care.



    Quote:

    Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs. There is no proof whatsoever for that. In fact, it would be simple for Apple to gather that information from shoppers who did not buy a desktop. If they had learned that those shoppers did not buy a desktop because they wanted a tower, then Apple would have made a tower.



    no one thinks that all Windows users would move to the Mac, just a small portion that would quadruple Apple's sales over time.



    Apple doesn't always make what people want. they make what they want people to want. Sometimes they are right to a certain extent. Sometimes they are right to a large extent, and, sometimes they are just plain wrong.



    Quote:

    95%?? That's due to Windows, not the form factor of the hardware.



    Mostly, but less and less as time goes by.



    Quote:

    As always, I don't care if Apple makes a midrange tower or not. If they think it can help market share, I'm all for it. I only buy towers myself.



    But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.



    That's an odd statement indeed.



    There's no market for it, but you only buy towers yourself?



    Almost all of the desktops sold are towers. While there are other AIO's out there, they sell poorly. Otherwise, the market would be filled with AIO's.
  • Reply 72 of 131
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.



    Most say $799+



    I say $499 + (with a corresponding reduction in bottom-end power and capabilities, you understand)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.



    Sure, I agree that most people don't know what a GPU is. But some people do.



    Other desktop parts that are more powerful than laptop ones are:



    The CPU

    The motherboard chipset (faster FSB)

    Optical drive





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs.



    No, not all of them. More than are currently enticed by the iMac, though.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    There is no proof whatsoever for that.



    Indeed. Only observation of the market trends and logical deduction suggest it to be the case. The only way of finding out for sure is to build it and see what happens. I can't prove that more people will switch, and you can't prove that they won't.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.



    You have got to be kidding me!



    Apple make laptops with best-in-class form-factors. People are switching to them in droves. If the AIO was such a brilliant desktop form-factor that all consumers craved, this effect would be replicated in the desktop space. But it isn't.



    Are you really not wondering, even a little bit, why Apple's % retail share of laptops is in the teens, whilst that of desktops is significantly under ten?
  • Reply 73 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I agree with everything you say, except for one part.



    What people want to buy is just important is what the need to buy.



    If people only bought what they needed, there would be few high quality goods available because people don't need them, they just want them.



    We might as well say the same thing about the Mac in general. People don't need them, but some want them.



    Do we need a more elegent OS? Do we need more elegent hardware?



    No, we don't. But are we happier with them? Yes, we are.



    So why not offer a product if people want, it if it will make them happy?



    Sometimes you can't force people to do things your way, so why bother?



    Because -- correctly or not -- Apple believes itself to be right. Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.



    If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes. And I think that Apple is in the frame of mind that it's doing extremely well already, sticking to its guns on where it thinks the industry should go, so why bother caving to the inferior status quo? If their sales started tanking, I'm sure they'd release an xMac. But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average and they're making more money than they've ever made before.



    While Apple clearly wants to make a profit, I think they also want to change the industry for the better. They're trying to balance those two desires here, and making an xMac would basically be sacrificing the latter in favour of the former.
  • Reply 74 of 131
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.



    If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes.



    I think nine years is long enough, especially in a fast-paced industry like this one. It isn't happening. The desktop market is not going AIO. And there's good reason. What's the point in going AIO if you don't get the biggest benefit of all the attendant compromises - portability?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average



    Only in laptops.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    and they're making more money than they've ever made before.



    And I think they could make even more.
  • Reply 75 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    Because -- correctly or not -- Apple believes itself to be right. Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.



    If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes. And I think that Apple is in the frame of mind that it's doing extremely well already, sticking to its guns on where it thinks the industry should go, so why bother caving to the inferior status quo? If their sales started tanking, I'm sure they'd release an xMac. But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average and they're making more money than they've ever made before.



    While Apple clearly wants to make a profit, I think they also want to change the industry for the better. They're trying to balance those two desires here, and making an xMac would basically be sacrificing the latter in favour of the former.



    This goes back a long ways. Check my post #60. People have just not taken to AIO's. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter.



    My position has always been, and I've stated it here many times, is that most people never upgrade thir machines, and that includes memory or HHD's.



    But I know guys who always but full towers, with 8 slots, anyway. Why? It makes them feel better, even if they only use one.



    When MS, or other companies, give consumers what they, the companies, want to give them, because they think it's what is best, we get down on them. But, when Apple does it, we find excuses for it.
  • Reply 76 of 131
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    HHD's.



    You know it's HDD (hard disk drive), right?
  • Reply 77 of 131
    Look at this another way: What other industry lets you configure the product you're going to buy in so many ways, or even lets you build your own? Most don't. Most provide you with a set of products to choose from, and that's all you get.



    Take cars, for instance. You choose the model you want, and regular operating procedure is to leave it pretty much as is, without upgrades. A very small percentage of car owners pimp their car out, but that's mostly cosmetic. And an even smaller percentage actually get into the guts of their cars and soup them up. But keep in mind, this kind of upgrading is typically not designed for by the manufacturers, and the upgrading is done by people trained to do so (whether professionally or through a personal interest). Aside from a couple models that are "upgrade friendly", you basically have to rip-and-replace components that aren't meant to be replaced. Want a bigger engine? You should have bought a more powerful car to begin with.



    Why are computers different? Why is there this overwhelming need to have computers that are designed to have every major component replaced with something else? Can you imagine how ugly and inefficient cars would be if they were designed to have all of their components upgraded with any number of different pieces, many of which will be much larger than the manufacturer originally intended? You'd have big, clunky monstrosities that really wouldn't satisfy anyone aside from mechano-geeks. So instead, car manufacturers decide what goes in their cars, and that's it (aside from little accessory tweaks like popping out the radio for something better).



    When it comes right down to it, you technically could take an iMac and upgrade it all to hell. You'd have to know what you were doing, certainly, but it would be possible. You'd also have to choose your components wisely to make sure they fit in the case, unless you were willing to modify the case slightly to fit larger components. But guess what? That's exactly the same as what you'd do to modify a car or any number of other products. You can change a very small number of accessories (a radio in a car, or a mouse and keyboard on a computer), but everything else is pretty much set in stone unless you want to get really down and dirty with the hardware.



    Computers are an anomaly in this sense, and they're much more complicated and less elegant because of it. I think Jobs wants to "correct" this.
  • Reply 78 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    You know it's HDD (hard disk drive), right?



    Yeah. Sometimes I make that typo. I can't think why, but I don't always catch it.
  • Reply 79 of 131
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post


    Look at this another way: What other industry lets you configure the product you're going to buy in so many ways, or even lets you build your own? Most don't. Most provide you with a set of products to choose from, and that's all you get.



    Take cars, for instance. You choose the model you want, and regular operating procedure is to leave it pretty much as is, without upgrades. A very small percentage of car owners pimp their car out, but that's mostly cosmetic. And an even smaller percentage actually get into the guts of their cars and soup them up. But keep in mind, this kind of upgrading is typically not designed for by the manufacturers, and the upgrading is done by people trained to do so (whether professionally or through a personal interest). Aside from a couple models that are "upgrade friendly", you basically have to rip-and-replace components that aren't meant to be replaced. Want a bigger engine? You should have bought a more powerful car to begin with.



    Why are computers different? Why is there this overwhelming need to have computers that are designed to have every major component replaced with something else? Can you imagine how ugly and inefficient cars would be if they were designed to have all of their components upgraded with any number of different pieces, many of which will be much larger than the manufacturer originally intended? You'd have big, clunky monstrosities that really wouldn't satisfy anyone aside from mechano-geeks. So instead, car manufacturers decide what goes in their cars, and that's it (aside from little accessory tweaks like popping out the radio for something better).



    When it comes right down to it, you technically could take an iMac and upgrade it all to hell. You'd have to know what you were doing, certainly, but it would be possible. You'd also have to choose your components wisely to make sure they fit in the case, unless you were willing to modify the case slightly to fit larger components. But guess what? That's exactly the same as what you'd do to modify a car or any number of other products. You can change a very small number of accessories (a radio in a car, or a mouse and keyboard on a computer), but everything else is pretty much set in stone unless you want to get really down and dirty with the hardware.



    Computers are an anomaly in this sense, and they're much more complicated and less elegant because of it. I think Jobs wants to "correct" this.



    That's an interesting comparison.



    But most auto companies do allow you to pick from two or more engines, among other packages.



    It's pretty hard to replace that engine once you get the car home though. If it were as difficult to lift the 800 pound HDD to install in your 2,500 pound computer, you probably wouldn't want to change it either.



    But, a computer is not a car. It's small, and it's easy to get inside, if it's made that way.



    If Apple offered more options in gpu's, and charged less for memory, and HDD's, then there might be less crabbing, but they don't, and so there isn't.
  • Reply 80 of 131
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,004member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    You know it's HDD (hard disk drive), right?





    And there I was trying to figure what old school storage they had back in the 80s that I couldn't remember!!
Sign In or Register to comment.