Not sure why your hard drives are dying so fast, I have had dozens of computers and have never had a hard drive fail ever. Successor to the mini, lol. The mini is basically a notebook without a screen. If Apple makes a desktop tower between the mini and the mac pro, that will kill 70% of mac pro sales instantly, Apple know this, thats why they dont.
I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \
It's really neat, and slim.. and light weight.. but unnecessarily wide and deep It must have been possible to shrink away the phat borders on the side of the screen.
You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \
I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.
Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.
You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?
As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.
I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.
One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.
iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.
Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \
Yeah, I never understood that. I guess I just chalked it up to "most people" being idiots. Or perhaps valuing different things than I do. Heck, it annoys me that my brand new 80 gig iPod classic (that will hold all my media files while my MBA is free to store other documents) weighs 5 whole ounces. In any case I'm definitely going to a minimalist case for my MBA, or more reasonably a rigid protective sleeve.
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \
All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.
$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000
Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.
I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.
Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.
Just off the floor of the MacWorld Expo where I got solid confirmation the MacBook Air Processor is a 45nm Merom 2 years in the making. So only the Mac Pro takes you into the next generation Intel Penryn processor family today. \
Just off the floor of the MacWorld Expo where I got solid confirmation the MacBook Air Processor is a 45nm Merom 2 years in the making. So only the Mac Pro takes you into the next generation Intel Penryn processor family today. \
You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.
You actually think Apple doesn't try to make their devices as small as possible? what this nice looking photoshop doesn't permit is any real structural integrity. It has no engineering to it, just what something thinks looks nice.
Since most of us here question your statements, you can direct it to everyone.
Those mag frames aren't cases. The cases are rubberized plastic. The frame is a thin metal casting that averages less than a mm thick in most places, and is what the internal components are screwed to. It doesn't cover anything, just holds them together. I discussed this earlier.
I don't know how you define ultralights, because by todays standards, they didn't exist ten years ago.
The market for any new product is always hard to completely define. we can look at the iPhone for that. It was though it would not get into business, but the reports are that it is pushing its way in very well.
I suspect that people who would spend $1200 to $1500 will move their price to cover this. Business people will buy them, despite the lack of a separate battery (which someone will quickly come up with a solution for). Journalists will love them. Students going to college will buy them (yes, I know, poor students won't, but they couldn't afford a MacBook either). Peope who just must have a really obviously tinner mchine will buy one.
And, of course, a lot of Apple customers who don't necessarily fit any of those categories will also buy one.
This machine can actually do more work than you might suspect. I certainly don't expect heavy duty users of PS or video to use this, but it can do graphics nicely and publishing as well. With ultralight screens being smaller and having less resolution, by todays standards, no ultralight is ideal here, but when on a trip, this could work pretty well.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device. Apple's stock is going down. They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on, and no doubt some of those other more expensive options including larger HDD and larger SSD. Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised. If you ask why I am stuck on this, it is because I WAS counting on this device to move back to Apple with. The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.
You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
All computers are limited. A Mac Pro is powerful but doesn't travel well despite it's handles. A MacBook is portable but a heavy for a constant traveler or underpowered for serious video editing. That is how it works!
The machines you mention are limited in screen size, performance and they don't even have a full size keyboard.! They might be okay for occasional use, but certainly aren't the machine you want to use for an extended period of time. Stop comparing subcompacts to an ultralight!
Quote:
This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device.
It's not your station wagon. It's not your family cruiser. It is the specific device for a specific consumer. That doesn't make it a bad machine. i don't think Alienware's mega=gamer machines are bad machines.. they just aren't for me.
Quote:
The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.
If a typical notebook computer doesn't meet your needs in any way how the hell would you expect an ultralight from Apple to ever fit them? Sure, you can daydream all you want but that isn't going to make it happen.
As for it's market, it's perfect for it's market. I'm it's market, you aren't, and I say it fits my needs and works into my lifestyle perfectly. 80GB is plenty as i have a new Mac Pro at home with 3TB of HDD capacity.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
Ok these have the full case.
These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.
Quote:
But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
Quote:
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.
The rest of your so called argument is irrelevant.
Quote:
You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.
You know nothing about anyone here, least of all me, to call me a fanboy.
That doesn't help your fractured argument any more than do your other remarks.
It's also a hardened notebook. How much does that cost, BTW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner
They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on
No, the bezel is wide to stiffen the machine (and in particular, the glass screen) against bending and flexing. Take it away and the screen pops or cracks. They might find a way to reduce the bezel over time, but as long as the machine is as thin as it is that bezel is going to be there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner
Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised.
1) You required something completely new? How often does that happen?
2) All ultralights are compromised. It's just a matter of deciding whether those compromises are acceptable. The MBA makes a different set of choices than most others, so yes, there are bound to be fans of existing ultralights that don't like it. But there are also bound to be people who never liked ultralights who will like it.
I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.
Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.
You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?
As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.
I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.
One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.
iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.
Is the business doing so badly?
We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.
If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.
BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!
We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether you are a subsidiary or not. Accounting rules remain the same for part of the company, wherever that may be, or whatever it may be.
Quote:
If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.
Perhaps. The question then is why did your department buy the G5's in the first place? The same discount applied then. Obviously, there must have been a perceived advantage to spend so much more then. Why has that changed?
Quote:
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.
I see this argument from those who have not used these machines much, if at all. Your mention of the HDD is misplaced, as the iMac uses the same drives as any other desktop. The mobo is also made for the iMac, and is not the same as used in the portables, etc.
In fact, the only thing that is, is the chips and chipset, and the Optical drive, which is reliable.
Also, remember that portables fail, not always so much for their "fragility" but more because they get banged around much more than their owner realizes. If your desktop was constantly moved around like your portable, it would last for even less time before failure.
Quote:
BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!
I'm sorry if i misunderstood, but this line is what made me think along those lines:
Quote:
Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line.
All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.
$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000
Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.
I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.
Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.
You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.
Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.
Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.
The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.
You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.
Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.
Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.
The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.
Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.
The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.
Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.
Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.
I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.
Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.
Comments
I wonder where this post will end up.
The first post on page 9. That's very strange.
seems perfectly in order ... on page 9
Not sure why your hard drives are dying so fast, I have had dozens of computers and have never had a hard drive fail ever. Successor to the mini, lol. The mini is basically a notebook without a screen. If Apple makes a desktop tower between the mini and the mac pro, that will kill 70% of mac pro sales instantly, Apple know this, thats why they dont.
I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...
This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html
And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways.
It's really neat, and slim.. and light weight.. but unnecessarily wide and deep It must have been possible to shrink away the phat borders on the side of the screen.
You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.
seems perfectly in order ... on page 9
Now it is. Once I made that post, but not before.
I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...
This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html
And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways.
I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.
Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.
You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?
As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.
I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.
One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.
iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.
Is the business doing so badly?
Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways.
Yeah, I never understood that. I guess I just chalked it up to "most people" being idiots. Or perhaps valuing different things than I do. Heck, it annoys me that my brand new 80 gig iPod classic (that will hold all my media files while my MBA is free to store other documents) weighs 5 whole ounces. In any case I'm definitely going to a minimalist case for my MBA, or more reasonably a rigid protective sleeve.
I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...
This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html
And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.
In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?
I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways.
All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.
$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000
Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.
I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.
Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.
Just off the floor of the MacWorld Expo where I got solid confirmation the MacBook Air Processor is a 45nm Merom 2 years in the making. So only the Mac Pro takes you into the next generation Intel Penryn processor family today.
Anands begs to differ on that:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201
You might notice that the Merom is a 65nm part, while mobile Penyrn parts are 45nm.
I posted the article as you might not believe me.
You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.
You actually think Apple doesn't try to make their devices as small as possible? what this nice looking photoshop doesn't permit is any real structural integrity. It has no engineering to it, just what something thinks looks nice.
Anands begs to differ on that:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201
You might notice that the Merom is a 65nm part, while mobile Penyrn parts are 45nm.
I posted the article as you might not believe me.
I posted this yeasterday but I don't think anyone noticed.
Since most of us here question your statements, you can direct it to everyone.
Those mag frames aren't cases. The cases are rubberized plastic. The frame is a thin metal casting that averages less than a mm thick in most places, and is what the internal components are screwed to. It doesn't cover anything, just holds them together. I discussed this earlier.
I don't know how you define ultralights, because by todays standards, they didn't exist ten years ago.
The market for any new product is always hard to completely define. we can look at the iPhone for that. It was though it would not get into business, but the reports are that it is pushing its way in very well.
I suspect that people who would spend $1200 to $1500 will move their price to cover this. Business people will buy them, despite the lack of a separate battery (which someone will quickly come up with a solution for). Journalists will love them. Students going to college will buy them (yes, I know, poor students won't, but they couldn't afford a MacBook either). Peope who just must have a really obviously tinner mchine will buy one.
And, of course, a lot of Apple customers who don't necessarily fit any of those categories will also buy one.
This machine can actually do more work than you might suspect. I certainly don't expect heavy duty users of PS or video to use this, but it can do graphics nicely and publishing as well. With ultralight screens being smaller and having less resolution, by todays standards, no ultralight is ideal here, but when on a trip, this could work pretty well.
melgross,
here is an answer to one of your misstatements:
from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp
Note it IS case, not frame.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device. Apple's stock is going down. They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on, and no doubt some of those other more expensive options including larger HDD and larger SSD. Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised. If you ask why I am stuck on this, it is because I WAS counting on this device to move back to Apple with. The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.
You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
All computers are limited. A Mac Pro is powerful but doesn't travel well despite it's handles. A MacBook is portable but a heavy for a constant traveler or underpowered for serious video editing. That is how it works!
The machines you mention are limited in screen size, performance and they don't even have a full size keyboard.! They might be okay for occasional use, but certainly aren't the machine you want to use for an extended period of time. Stop comparing subcompacts to an ultralight!
This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device.
It's not your station wagon. It's not your family cruiser. It is the specific device for a specific consumer. That doesn't make it a bad machine. i don't think Alienware's mega=gamer machines are bad machines.. they just aren't for me.
The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.
If a typical notebook computer doesn't meet your needs in any way how the hell would you expect an ultralight from Apple to ever fit them? Sure, you can daydream all you want but that isn't going to make it happen.
As for it's market, it's perfect for it's market. I'm it's market, you aren't, and I say it fits my needs and works into my lifestyle perfectly. 80GB is plenty as i have a new Mac Pro at home with 3TB of HDD capacity.
melgross,
here is an answer to one of your misstatements:
from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp
Note it IS case, not frame.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
Ok these have the full case.
These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.
But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.
Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.
The rest of your so called argument is irrelevant.
You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.
You know nothing about anyone here, least of all me, to call me a fanboy.
That doesn't help your fractured argument any more than do your other remarks.
from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp
Note it IS case, not frame.
It's also a hardened notebook. How much does that cost, BTW?
They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on
No, the bezel is wide to stiffen the machine (and in particular, the glass screen) against bending and flexing. Take it away and the screen pops or cracks. They might find a way to reduce the bezel over time, but as long as the machine is as thin as it is that bezel is going to be there.
Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised.
1) You required something completely new? How often does that happen?
2) All ultralights are compromised. It's just a matter of deciding whether those compromises are acceptable. The MBA makes a different set of choices than most others, so yes, there are bound to be fans of existing ultralights that don't like it. But there are also bound to be people who never liked ultralights who will like it.
I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.
Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.
You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?
As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.
I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.
One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.
iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.
Is the business doing so badly?
We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.
If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.
BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!
We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether you are a subsidiary or not. Accounting rules remain the same for part of the company, wherever that may be, or whatever it may be.
If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.
Perhaps. The question then is why did your department buy the G5's in the first place? The same discount applied then. Obviously, there must have been a perceived advantage to spend so much more then. Why has that changed?
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.
I see this argument from those who have not used these machines much, if at all. Your mention of the HDD is misplaced, as the iMac uses the same drives as any other desktop. The mobo is also made for the iMac, and is not the same as used in the portables, etc.
In fact, the only thing that is, is the chips and chipset, and the Optical drive, which is reliable.
Also, remember that portables fail, not always so much for their "fragility" but more because they get banged around much more than their owner realizes. If your desktop was constantly moved around like your portable, it would last for even less time before failure.
BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!
I'm sorry if i misunderstood, but this line is what made me think along those lines:
Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line.
Reads like a tightening of the belt.
All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.
$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000
Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.
I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.
Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.
You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.
Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.
Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.
The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.
You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.
Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.
Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.
The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.
Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.
The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.
Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.
Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.
I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.
Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.