Why doesn't Apple release a decent product with graphics?
Look, I have apple products, and have used PC's for a while. Some apps (samplers) were PC only and are soon to be MAC I think but many drivers never came out for Vista.
Now, I understand the core base for the "air" but there are others (Asus) that are 1/4 the price and what I don't understand (besides apple deleting threads) is how many can defend the price to performance issue and more importantly, which I have never, ever, ever seen addressed, is what is Apple afraid of? Meaning a sub $1000 Apple or Mini or Macbook with good graphics for games?
I do not believe that the argument is APPLE is afraid of losing PROS to buying cheap computers for motion.
So what if they do.
The user base for motion and so on would increase and I am tired of these computers NOT being able to play games. Why can't we?
Sure I can on my macbook pro but why, why, why not have a machine that you won't cringe if you lost that was $500+ or so?
The user base is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, made up of us anymore. Its all mom and dads iPhones and iMacs.....NOT NOT NOT Pros....this would NOT affect APPLE's market share.
So really, why not release a good mini ($50 GPU chip) or portable that can runs games? Yes, some will install motion but so what - the market wouldn't reflect that at all, in fact, I think it would grow as every college kid would have one.
Peace.
Still love apple.
Now, I understand the core base for the "air" but there are others (Asus) that are 1/4 the price and what I don't understand (besides apple deleting threads) is how many can defend the price to performance issue and more importantly, which I have never, ever, ever seen addressed, is what is Apple afraid of? Meaning a sub $1000 Apple or Mini or Macbook with good graphics for games?
I do not believe that the argument is APPLE is afraid of losing PROS to buying cheap computers for motion.
So what if they do.
The user base for motion and so on would increase and I am tired of these computers NOT being able to play games. Why can't we?
Sure I can on my macbook pro but why, why, why not have a machine that you won't cringe if you lost that was $500+ or so?
The user base is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, made up of us anymore. Its all mom and dads iPhones and iMacs.....NOT NOT NOT Pros....this would NOT affect APPLE's market share.
So really, why not release a good mini ($50 GPU chip) or portable that can runs games? Yes, some will install motion but so what - the market wouldn't reflect that at all, in fact, I think it would grow as every college kid would have one.
Peace.
Still love apple.
Comments
Fast, Good, Cheap: you may pick any two
Until their profits start dropping, they will continue doing things their own way.
I think they could easily make a lot of money on a mid-range product with good graphics options but like I say, if their profits are up, they probably don't see a reason to expand.
They've made it clear they like small, quiet all-in-one computers. As soon as they make a product that's more powerful, useful and affordable, people will question that strategy and their commitment to it.
People are already doing the same thing with the Macbook Air. Why would you pay more money for a less powerful computer than the Macbook to simply save 2lbs of weight?
I think they could sell both a sensible computer and an iMac together even if the iMac suffered a bit. To try and force a niche design onto the mainstream limits consumer appeal considerably. Selling only the iMac in the mid-range would be equivalent to them selling only the Macbook Air and the Macbook Pro. I'm sure people wouldn't like that setup too much.
In a year's time, I don't think it will matter much though. Once quad core mobiles are out, a second hand MBP and a Mac Pro with good graphics cards should be cheap enough that making a new lineup with good graphics won't be necessary. The longer Apple decide not to build what would be the most successful Mac they'd ever made, the less of a necessity it will be.
When the Intel switch happened, I really thought they'd introduce a mid-range headless desktop. Weighing up the decisions I've seen them make in the last couple of years, I don't have that much respect for Apple as a company any more - it's clear to me now that money and image matters more to them than offering practical solutions to their customers.
Who knows, in time maybe people will have worked out how to virtualize OS X to support the graphics hardware and Apple won't be able to use their OS to leverage their weak consumer hardware offerings.
Apple just has the benefit of having an iconic logo that people freak out about and an OS that looks pretty.
The Macbook starts at $1100 which is only ahhhh (subtract 1000 carry the 2 add the exponent) only $100 more than "sub $1000". Then the student price is just under $1000.
These have GMA's. I think his point is that it would be nice if the MacBooks and Minis at least had a BTO option for something better without hitting MBP prices.
Its a tradeoff though. Right now the differentiator between MB and MBP is graphics. If they added discrete graphics the MB might start trailing more significantly processor wise.