It's more like the pig got some major plastic surgery to look better, with some bionic implants thrown in for good measure. It's still a pig, but it's a technically advanced and decent looking pig.
That is very bad compare.
We all know that pigs eat apples. Even rotten ones. And poor apples have no defence against pigs
i hope the io system gets fixed in snow leopard. Nothing like copying a few hundred gigabytes from the network to a second drive and not being able to use the computer for anything else while the copy takes place. Tried this on my windows 7 machine, slow, but still usable (and there is no second drive in that machine).
So basically Microsoft is where it should have been two years ago.
Apple's main advantage with SL will be performance. Grand Central, OpenCL and a full 64-bit OS will fly once applications have been released to support these features.
Apple will be ahead of Microsoft in 64-bit computing for a while as Apple's implementation is a lot more seamless. Users won't even notice the transition, which is how it should be. It just sucks that the first Intel machines were 32-bit as that was a step backwards and they'll still need to support them for the next couple of years.
Uh... out of pure ignorance, how's Apple 64-bit implementation more seamless..?
My guess is they probably don't think cutting the price will make a huge impact. They were too late to the game and, quite frankly, the product isn't as good.
I understand being happy with margins, especially the big ones that Apple has on their computers. But I think in Apple's case you could make an argument for trimming up top end bonuses (and they'd still be very nice) and cutting margin only slightly.
Historically Apple has had a cost of around 60%. That's quite low for cost. It also increases greatly when people do add-ons via custom builds. For instance, it costs $75 to upgrade from a 320GB SATA HDD on the iMac to a 640GB one. Apple likely pays less than this amount for the drive itself AND will put the 320GB drive back in for manufacturing. A Seagate 7200RPM Barracuda at 320GB costs $55 on NewEgg. The 640 GB Seagate with 32MB of cache that I bought is $70. So realistically it is a $15 upgrade. If Apple charged $20 they would maintain a similar profit margin to the base model, but the hammer the buyer with a $75 upgrade fee. And those drives are loaded off of a mirror, so it doesn't take much work to load the system on them. They actually have them preloaded. Even at $25 it would be a reasonable price for an upgrade, but $75 is a HUGE markup.
It costs $100 to go from 2GB of DDR1066 to 4GB of it. A 4GB kit from Kingston at NewEgg costs $61.99. Apple pays less for memory. Yes, they'd have to pull out the 2x1GB sticks, but those would go right back into manufacturing. 2x1GB costs $35.49. So a $30 upgrade fee or even $35 would be reasonable and they'd be making extra cash. Instead they charge $100. Yes, you can do it yourself just like the HDD, but then you get the privilege of tossing the 2GB worth of RAM instead of Apple reusing it in manufacturing. It would seem "greener" to me to charge a reasonable price for a memory upgrade and insure end users don't just toss their extra RAM.
I like OSX better myself. I'm not a fan of buy a ready made PC, but I've found Vista to be fairly enjoyable. I like that I was able to build a machine without a bunch of preloaded garbage, something Apple is very good about on machines they build.
I should say that I've had very few security patches with Vista thus far, but I got it SP1. No crashes, no problems, and it is the most secure Windows OS I've ever used.
I also have no problem paying a premium for a Mac, but the question is how much of a premium.
A base iMac is $1199. Let's assume the usual 60% cost, so Apple pays around $719 for the hardware. Other factors have to be rolled in, such as development, marketing, etc. However the partnership with Intel has cut down Apple's costs for engineering, especially on the logic board. Let's assume we need an additional 20% off that $719 for additional costs, though those costs go down the more iMacs that are sold because the are distributed across the line. That brings us to $863. Let's assume a 15% profit margin on the iMac based on the end price. The price would be at $1015 for a base iMac. Let's go up to $1049 just to make it all nice and even.
And remember that as HDD price, CPU price, GPU price, and RAM prices go down the margins get better.
I would guess, and I've heard it from friends that work closely with Apple, that Apple tends to run about 30% profit on their hardware before bonuses are paid out.
The margins are likely to same or better on laptops.
Apple would still make a boatload of money starting the iMac out at $1099 AND they would also get more people in the door.
Imagine if they had a desktop that started at $799 or $899. That's hardly a bottom feeder at that price - and if they offered dual core and quad core options as upgrades while offering REASONABLE upgrade prices.
I don't think Apple need give up premium pricing because I think A LOT of people don't mind paying $100-200 extra on the lower end of things for a Mac. I know I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that on the bottom end of things it is likely closer to $400-500 and it gets worse as you move up.
My example comparing to my machine is based on Apple's builds. The reason THAT looks so bad for Apple is because they offer nothing like my machine. Mac Pro is overkill and the iMac is underkill, but they overcharge to get to 8GB (Apple charges $1100 to upgrade to 8GB). I know 4GB sticks are hard to find and expensive, but they're not THAT expensive. $400-500 would be reasonable for an upgrade to 8GB on the iMac, though a design with 4 memory slots would make 8GB far more attainable. OSX is 64 bit but if you don't have a MacPro then good luck affordably getting beyond 4GB.
I'm very careful when I build. I check the MoBo. I check all the hardware. I pay more for better parts. I didn't buy the bottom rung Asus MoBo. I got a Seagate HDD, the same make my iMac had. A got a Gigabyte nVidia GPU.
I understand why people would like this, but I hate the performance hit a system takes by indexing the drive. I always turn the indexing off because I hate the performance hit. I just prefer to stay organized from the beginning.
I believe it was a 1.1% decline first quarter versus a .6% growth for the overall PC industry largely driven by netbook sales.
The word is that Apple has experienced a 3% decline thus far in the new quarter, with iMacs being the hardest hit.
Honestly, I don't disagree at all on the laptops, though I dislike the lack of selection. I don't want to have to go to the MacBook Pro to get a 15" screen and I do think the prices on the MacBook are a bit high right now. The previous iteration was fairly priced, but they got really out of whack on this one and assumed that minor upgrades were worth more than they truly are.
I'm not a laptop guy. I have had them and I would be likely to get a Mac, but I find the MacBook to be about $200 more than it should be - and even with that mark down it would still cost more than equivalent PC notebooks. That's fine because it is much better.
That's why I love the desktop. I can spend $50 for a new nVidia card and link it up with my current one via SLI and double or better my GPU power. I can also buy a socket compatible processor. My MoBo supports AM3, so quad-core 3GHZ and beyond will be available for me with more L1, L2, and L3 cash at a cost of $150 or maybe less, depending on when I upgrade.
I know I can't run my old Windows stuff in Vista. That's one reason why MS got dumped on for it - they threw out a lot of compatibility. And the 64 bit version can't run 16 bit Windows stuff. Some of the full blown Win32 stuff can be run.
That's why you can download Virtual PC for free for Vista. They did that to address the compatibility issues. Also a lot of old hardware won't work.
The big problem I have with the mini again is the price and lack of any flexibility. The average user cannot upgrade the memory, so they're stuck paying Apple's crazy prices ($150 for an upgrade to 4GB on the base). That $599 model has no keyboard, mouse, a 120GB HDD, and only 1GB. For $399 or $449 it might be okay, but the 250GB HDD costs very little extra and an extra GB probably costs Apple $10, if that.
Dude it doesn't matter how more expensive you think apple is. The truth of the matter is that the efficiency of mac pays for itself in very little time. Compare that to the huge time sink that windows is and you could give me a windows machine for free and I still wouldn't touch it.
If one needs to by something for a one man company the configuration above is a good choice. But when one buys a computer to manage his digital life it may not look that compelling.
How I would look at this configuration:
+ Intel Core 2 Quad - good! I like more speed!
+ 500 GB Hard drive; + 802.11n wireless network; - that's OK. Nothing to write home about, though.
+ Blu-Ray drive for High definition; - I don't care (honestly!). May be in 2-3 years I will, but right now - NO! It is not clear if that thingy can write, but my last pack of 50 pcs DVD media was bought 2 years ago and sits largely unused in a cabinet. I am making backups on an external hard drive and saving temporary stuff to a USB stick, using MobileMe or yousendit for sending large files.
+ TV tuner; - I don't care. I am not watching or going to watch TV on my computer. I am not that big TV fan. Even when I do watch TV, I prefer the large screen. And when there are no friends or family watching with me, I am sitting with my laptop browsing the net in front of the said TV.
+ keyboard and mouse; and - yes, sure!
+ One HP 21.5 inch liquid crystal monitor; - good, is this a decent one or a piece of crap you will want to replace?
+ One all in one HP printer-scanner-copier - I kind of dislike those all in one devices, and I already have a printer and scanner anyway.
Let me see what I want:
- does it run iPhoto?
- does it run Aperture?
- how well the mail, calendar, contacts and photo library will integrate with my iPhone?
And yes, the aesthetics and emotional part: does this piece of hardware make me want it?
Don't get me wrong. I am not rich, and I may think: FU you Apple, couldn't you make something as affordable as this? But I will not by the above configuration.
I think that the average computer user is not illiterate these days and knows what he or she is looking for. And it definitely does not boil down to the price tag only. These was more or less the case when the people thought that ALL computers run Windows and you only need to choose a lowest price for a max clock speed. Not true anymore.
That is very personal opinion from one person, no doubt a 100% valid for you, but I think majority would choose printer over iPhoto.
Aperture, well... how many people actually run software like Aperture or Lightroom..?
No it is not. Mac OSX leopard makes your mac run with the efficiency of a 2x8-core overclocked monster with dual graphics card and 1 TB of RAM.
Windows, on the other hand, can make a supercomputer run like an abacus just for the sheer amount of time that is wasted getting rid of viruses and bloatware.
Windows 6? I guess you are talking about Vista, even though it's not called that. If you are right people just won't upgrade, who really wants to spend $300 on a OS upgrade which is just going to give them hell and not actually allow them to anything more than what they can currently do?
Vista users will be the most irritated since they will be paying for basically bugs fixes.
I think most Vista users will not upgrade.
I've seen people refusing to take Vista (even take a look at it), but I can't really say I've seen people using Vista in the last year or so and not being happy with it (much as they were with XP).
I know it is hard to accept here in these waters, but after SP1 Vista is fine and drivers have matured. As it is, Vista is more stable and robust than XP ever was - or will be. My personal opinion is that it does require 512MB more RAM to have same memory performance as XP has, but that is about it.
Perhaps you should investigate things like that before you speak. Apple was putting Carbon on a path for oscelescence for a decade. When moving to 64 bit they realized that developers would spend just as much time moving their UI to 64 bit carbon as they would to cocoa. Apple was wasting everybody's time with porting across the carbon UI pieces. They settled on the carbon backend but no UI.
Adobe is looking for excuses for taking so long. The fact is they have a codebase and they don't want to change it. Either way, Carbon64 or Cocoa it was adobe's job to port everything across and they've had a decade. Don't blame Apple for Adobe's product decisions, Apple gave them ample warning.
Don't blame Apple?
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
Dude it doesn't matter how more expensive you think apple is. The truth of the matter is that the efficiency of mac pays for itself in very little time. Compare that to the huge time sink that windows is and you could give me a windows machine for free and I still wouldn't touch it.
I've had less down time on my Windows machine relative to my iMac. My iMac had hardware problems that caused it to not function properly due to Apple's poor choice of parts. Then they failed to stand behind their decision to cheap out.
$500 does not pay for itself in very little time. As I said, I've had no down time on my Vista machine because I built it properly and maintain it properly. I also had to maintain my Macs as well because, like all computers, they would get gummed up a bit over time. That's why I bought Socks on the Mac, to clean up the issues that even an Unix system can have.
Show me some proof of the efficiency you speak of and not merely hearsay. I switched to Mac in the first place and it was definitely better... seven years ago. I don't find it to be that way so much anymore. I suspect Windows 7 will make it even less so.
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
Adobe was told the moment Apple decided not to port carbon 64.
You think Apple would dispense info to Adobe at WWDC like all the other developers? The Mac needed Adobe's professional apps for practical survival. They don't change their mind and then switch and wait a year to tell Adobe. That's just silly.
Actually the decision was made, from what i'm told from very good sources, after heavy consultation with Adobe.
But nevertheless I think you missed the boat on what I was saying. A carbon port to 64 bit would take just as long as a Carbon-to-cocoa port. There is practically no difference. Adobe is pointing at Apple saying "they promised us, it's not out fault", but the fact is A) they were told a decade before to switch to Cocoa, B ) they were told the moment the decision change occurred. C) they're saying that forced cocoa is the cause of their delays. WRONG! I was at WWDC when they explained there is no difference in porting time, and gave good reason. Either way, it wouldve taken Adobe just as long anyway. No difference.
Adobe's problem, all summed up, and the only reason you can blame these delays, is Adobe bet on Apple not removing Carbon and put all their weight on it despite Apple's continued insistance that Cocoa should be adopted immediately. If they had done that, these problems wouldn't have ever occurred. Adobe chose to stick on their path. If Apple had ported 64 carbon, they would still be just as delayed. With Apple's lack of porting they are delayed. Why? Because Adobe didn't change when Apple told all developers to.
I have a question to the people who have access to the Snow Leopard development buids: Can we finally switch graphic cards on the fly without having to log out first?
Uh... out of pure ignorance, how's Apple 64-bit implementation more seamless..?
- Mac OS 64-bit implementation does not require a separate version. You install one and the same OS. The reports on Snow Leopard suggest that if you have 64-bit processor you may restart in either mode. You have one and the same universal binary application which may have 32 and 64 bit code in one bundle. You can require that a particular 64-capable application is launched in 32-bit mode (e.g. for plugin compatibility).
Quote:
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
- Apparently Apple wanted to port Carbon initially. Then they realized that this is quite of a challenge. Remember, every engineering task is a matter of compromise. They had to take a look: how much work we will need? What we will gain? How long this code will be used? Carbon was around for a decade. Significant parts of the code there is more than 2 decades old. How much life would a 64-bit Carbon have? It does not make sense to spend 2 years/ thousands of man-hours on a code that will become obsolete in another two years. Then there is the question: why is Carbon still used besides the old code-base? If they do re-write Carbon, will this really help?
Cocoa is object-oriented API, Carbon is procedural API. When moving to 64 bit, this makes HUGE difference. The object in an Object-oriented language abstracts the underlying implementation. You may have NSData object, which holds, well, data. In 32-bit mode the size of the data is limited by the address space. The limit under 64-but is beyond the practical sense at this time. When this is changed, the developer needs to do NOTHING to migrate the code to 64 bit. All methods of the NSData class or other API calls where NSData instance is passed as an argument will just work. With the procedural (function based) API you can not have one and the same function which has arguments of different size or return different type. You need to keep the old functions and write new 64 bit versions. Then the developer of the client application will need to re-write the code to use the new functions with the new data types. It quite may be that Adobe was not interested in doing this either. Why spend lots of time on temporary patches if they are already moving to Cocoa anyway?
I don't think Apple should be blamed here. This is a normal engineering process. As far as Adobe is considered: they also have their reasons to be conservative. But they try to use their strength to push Apple to do their homework, to save them time and money by slowing down the innovation. Adobe is not interested in Apple's innovation for many reasons. Most importantly, they want to have equivalent functionality for the majority of the products they ship. This means that they stick to the lowest denominator and Mac OS advantages have no use for them. Then they want to have more platform-independent code base. There is no Cocoa for Windows, so they prefer procedural approach. It is easier to "map" Windows function calls to Carbon APIs then to use Cocoa API. Last but not least, Adobe does not want strong Apple.
So many people here keep to insist that all decisions made in Cupertino are either stupid, made of evil or just aim to f**k off someone, ether the consumer or a third party software/hardware vendor.
However, BR manufacturers do ship BR players with their BR drives. True, I'd like to play everything with one player, but hey. Better that than nothing.
Indeed. And any PC that ships with a Blu-Ray drive will (does) come with a copy of PowerDVD or something that can play it.
Price and lack of options is why I switched back to Windows from the Mac. I built a quad-core 2.6GHZ AMD-based machine with a 640GB, a 24" Viewsonic 1080P display, and 8GB of memory for less than $1000. Vista 64 flies on it. Downloaded Rocketdock and now I'm perfectly happy, especially since I don't need to minimize to the dock. I always missed the Start menu and the taskbar in Windows. I love the taskbar for minimization and the Start menu to find things easily. I always had to go digging on the HDD in OSX.
I agree with you on the hardware part – I also think Apple should have more options there.
Can't agree on the user interface though. If you minimize Windows in Mac OS X you really wasting a lot of time. I basically never minimize windows (in Mac OS X), instead the excellent ability to hide and application (and hide others except the frontmost) is being used. Then it's just to use the app switcher (cmd tab, which I have mapped to the scroll wheel of the mouse by the way) to get back to the app again and all windows are where I left them. No need to spend time searching for the right window in the Dock. Also I really find it much better that Mac OS X only shows the running applications in the app switcher since I often run 20-30 apps at the same time. This would look really messy in Windows with its task bar. The same goes for the ”flip 3D” feature in Vista (windowskey tab). It's ok when some windows are on the screen but with 20+ apps it becomes a mess. Same goes for Exposé but I still think it's better because you see how the entire window looks (even if it's small with many windows on screen).
Also I'm a bit irritated on the PC I recently bought since the BIOS just died for no apparent reason, so I had to send in the motherboard for repair and I'm still waiting. Never heard of the EFI on a Mac freaking out like that, but at the same time I guess it has less options. Got to use Vista 64 on if for 30 minutes before it died though, and I agree it was pretty fast.
I understand that Apple might not let Mac OS X be ran on any PC, but I think they should offer a broader range of hardware options themselves. It doesn't have to be like Dell, but now it is a little too spartan to say the least.
Edit:
Forgot to add that I also seldom have to ”dig around” on the hard drive like you mentioned. Spotlight is really great for launching apps and getting to most folders quickly.
I've had less down time on my Windows machine relative to my iMac. My iMac had hardware problems that caused it to not function properly due to Apple's poor choice of parts. Then they failed to stand behind their decision to cheap out.
$500 does not pay for itself in very little time. As I said, I've had no down time on my Vista machine because I built it properly and maintain it properly. I also had to maintain my Macs as well because, like all computers, they would get gummed up a bit over time. That's why I bought Socks on the Mac, to clean up the issues that even an Unix system can have.
Show me some proof of the efficiency you speak of and not merely hearsay. I switched to Mac in the first place and it was definitely better... seven years ago. I don't find it to be that way so much anymore. I suspect Windows 7 will make it even less so.
Snow Leopard will make it even more so, I suspect. Note that you offer no proof for your theories, only your anecdotes. Here is my anectode. My windows machine, which I built after a lot of research and considerable amount of money self destructed after about 2 years of use. Note that I researched my build for at least 60 hours, not an unreasonable time, and used only the best quality. If I had worked those 60 hours I would have made some $3000 dollars. So any difference in price is erased off the bat.
But supposed I was considering buying a dell or gateway. In those 2 years I must have spent 4 hours a week doing upgrades, getting better antivirus software, defragging, etc, etc. By comparison I spend less than 1 hour a month maintaining my two macs. If you do the math that is about $10 thousand dollars wasted every year and you don't even get the same level of functionality the mac offers.
Adobe was told the moment Apple decided not to port carbon 64.
You think Apple would dispense info to Adobe at WWDC like all the other developers? The Mac needed Adobe's professional apps for practical survival. They don't change their mind and then switch and wait a year to tell Adobe. That's just silly.
Actually the decision was made, from what i'm told from very good sources, after heavy consultation with Adobe.
But nevertheless I think you missed the boat on what I was saying. A carbon port to 64 bit would take just as long as a Carbon-to-cocoa port. There is practically no difference. Adobe is pointing at Apple saying "they promised us, it's not out fault", but the fact is A) they were told a decade before to switch to Cocoa, B ) they were told the moment the decision change occurred. C) they're saying that forced cocoa is the cause of their delays. WRONG! I was at WWDC when they explained there is no difference in porting time, and gave good reason. Either way, it wouldve taken Adobe just as long anyway. No difference.
Adobe's problem, all summed up, and the only reason you can blame these delays, is Adobe bet on Apple not removing Carbon and put all their weight on it despite Apple's continued insistance that Cocoa should be adopted immediately. If they had done that, these problems wouldn't have ever occurred. Adobe chose to stick on their path. If Apple had ported 64 carbon, they would still be just as delayed. With Apple's lack of porting they are delayed. Why? Because Adobe didn't change when Apple told all developers to.
And so did Apple.
Why is iTunes not Cocoa? I run 64-bit iTunes and you can't do that on a Mac.
No, Adobe DID change, but they were too far along with CS4.
Apple's timing would have meant that CS4 would have been released on the PC well ahead of a Mac version. That would have been very bad for Apple.
Once again, Apple's failure to plan for moving to 64-bit is the problem here. Look at their apps.
How long has Apple had to move many of their apps over to Cocoa and yet failed to do so? Funny to hammer Adobe when Apple has also failed to implement their own API very well.
Comments
It's more like the pig got some major plastic surgery to look better, with some bionic implants thrown in for good measure. It's still a pig, but it's a technically advanced and decent looking pig.
That is very bad compare.
We all know that pigs eat apples. Even rotten ones. And poor apples have no defence against pigs
i hope the io system gets fixed in snow leopard. Nothing like copying a few hundred gigabytes from the network to a second drive and not being able to use the computer for anything else while the copy takes place. Tried this on my windows 7 machine, slow, but still usable (and there is no second drive in that machine).
o u c h .
So basically Microsoft is where it should have been two years ago.
Apple's main advantage with SL will be performance. Grand Central, OpenCL and a full 64-bit OS will fly once applications have been released to support these features.
Apple will be ahead of Microsoft in 64-bit computing for a while as Apple's implementation is a lot more seamless. Users won't even notice the transition, which is how it should be. It just sucks that the first Intel machines were 32-bit as that was a step backwards and they'll still need to support them for the next couple of years.
Uh... out of pure ignorance, how's Apple 64-bit implementation more seamless..?
Uh... out of pure ignorance, how's Apple 64-bit implementation more seamless..?
Because you don't crash 3 times for every 4 attempts at installing 64-bit applications, and once installed applications do work.
My guess is they probably don't think cutting the price will make a huge impact. They were too late to the game and, quite frankly, the product isn't as good.
I understand being happy with margins, especially the big ones that Apple has on their computers. But I think in Apple's case you could make an argument for trimming up top end bonuses (and they'd still be very nice) and cutting margin only slightly.
Historically Apple has had a cost of around 60%. That's quite low for cost. It also increases greatly when people do add-ons via custom builds. For instance, it costs $75 to upgrade from a 320GB SATA HDD on the iMac to a 640GB one. Apple likely pays less than this amount for the drive itself AND will put the 320GB drive back in for manufacturing. A Seagate 7200RPM Barracuda at 320GB costs $55 on NewEgg. The 640 GB Seagate with 32MB of cache that I bought is $70. So realistically it is a $15 upgrade. If Apple charged $20 they would maintain a similar profit margin to the base model, but the hammer the buyer with a $75 upgrade fee. And those drives are loaded off of a mirror, so it doesn't take much work to load the system on them. They actually have them preloaded. Even at $25 it would be a reasonable price for an upgrade, but $75 is a HUGE markup.
It costs $100 to go from 2GB of DDR1066 to 4GB of it. A 4GB kit from Kingston at NewEgg costs $61.99. Apple pays less for memory. Yes, they'd have to pull out the 2x1GB sticks, but those would go right back into manufacturing. 2x1GB costs $35.49. So a $30 upgrade fee or even $35 would be reasonable and they'd be making extra cash. Instead they charge $100. Yes, you can do it yourself just like the HDD, but then you get the privilege of tossing the 2GB worth of RAM instead of Apple reusing it in manufacturing. It would seem "greener" to me to charge a reasonable price for a memory upgrade and insure end users don't just toss their extra RAM.
I like OSX better myself. I'm not a fan of buy a ready made PC, but I've found Vista to be fairly enjoyable. I like that I was able to build a machine without a bunch of preloaded garbage, something Apple is very good about on machines they build.
I should say that I've had very few security patches with Vista thus far, but I got it SP1. No crashes, no problems, and it is the most secure Windows OS I've ever used.
I also have no problem paying a premium for a Mac, but the question is how much of a premium.
A base iMac is $1199. Let's assume the usual 60% cost, so Apple pays around $719 for the hardware. Other factors have to be rolled in, such as development, marketing, etc. However the partnership with Intel has cut down Apple's costs for engineering, especially on the logic board. Let's assume we need an additional 20% off that $719 for additional costs, though those costs go down the more iMacs that are sold because the are distributed across the line. That brings us to $863. Let's assume a 15% profit margin on the iMac based on the end price. The price would be at $1015 for a base iMac. Let's go up to $1049 just to make it all nice and even.
And remember that as HDD price, CPU price, GPU price, and RAM prices go down the margins get better.
I would guess, and I've heard it from friends that work closely with Apple, that Apple tends to run about 30% profit on their hardware before bonuses are paid out.
The margins are likely to same or better on laptops.
Apple would still make a boatload of money starting the iMac out at $1099 AND they would also get more people in the door.
Imagine if they had a desktop that started at $799 or $899. That's hardly a bottom feeder at that price - and if they offered dual core and quad core options as upgrades while offering REASONABLE upgrade prices.
I don't think Apple need give up premium pricing because I think A LOT of people don't mind paying $100-200 extra on the lower end of things for a Mac. I know I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that on the bottom end of things it is likely closer to $400-500 and it gets worse as you move up.
My example comparing to my machine is based on Apple's builds. The reason THAT looks so bad for Apple is because they offer nothing like my machine. Mac Pro is overkill and the iMac is underkill, but they overcharge to get to 8GB (Apple charges $1100 to upgrade to 8GB). I know 4GB sticks are hard to find and expensive, but they're not THAT expensive. $400-500 would be reasonable for an upgrade to 8GB on the iMac, though a design with 4 memory slots would make 8GB far more attainable. OSX is 64 bit but if you don't have a MacPro then good luck affordably getting beyond 4GB.
I'm very careful when I build. I check the MoBo. I check all the hardware. I pay more for better parts. I didn't buy the bottom rung Asus MoBo. I got a Seagate HDD, the same make my iMac had. A got a Gigabyte nVidia GPU.
I understand why people would like this, but I hate the performance hit a system takes by indexing the drive. I always turn the indexing off because I hate the performance hit. I just prefer to stay organized from the beginning.
I believe it was a 1.1% decline first quarter versus a .6% growth for the overall PC industry largely driven by netbook sales.
The word is that Apple has experienced a 3% decline thus far in the new quarter, with iMacs being the hardest hit.
Honestly, I don't disagree at all on the laptops, though I dislike the lack of selection. I don't want to have to go to the MacBook Pro to get a 15" screen and I do think the prices on the MacBook are a bit high right now. The previous iteration was fairly priced, but they got really out of whack on this one and assumed that minor upgrades were worth more than they truly are.
I'm not a laptop guy. I have had them and I would be likely to get a Mac, but I find the MacBook to be about $200 more than it should be - and even with that mark down it would still cost more than equivalent PC notebooks. That's fine because it is much better.
That's why I love the desktop. I can spend $50 for a new nVidia card and link it up with my current one via SLI and double or better my GPU power. I can also buy a socket compatible processor. My MoBo supports AM3, so quad-core 3GHZ and beyond will be available for me with more L1, L2, and L3 cash at a cost of $150 or maybe less, depending on when I upgrade.
I know I can't run my old Windows stuff in Vista. That's one reason why MS got dumped on for it - they threw out a lot of compatibility. And the 64 bit version can't run 16 bit Windows stuff. Some of the full blown Win32 stuff can be run.
That's why you can download Virtual PC for free for Vista. They did that to address the compatibility issues. Also a lot of old hardware won't work.
The big problem I have with the mini again is the price and lack of any flexibility. The average user cannot upgrade the memory, so they're stuck paying Apple's crazy prices ($150 for an upgrade to 4GB on the base). That $599 model has no keyboard, mouse, a 120GB HDD, and only 1GB. For $399 or $449 it might be okay, but the 250GB HDD costs very little extra and an extra GB probably costs Apple $10, if that.
Dude it doesn't matter how more expensive you think apple is. The truth of the matter is that the efficiency of mac pays for itself in very little time. Compare that to the huge time sink that windows is and you could give me a windows machine for free and I still wouldn't touch it.
It is not that simple.
If one needs to by something for a one man company the configuration above is a good choice. But when one buys a computer to manage his digital life it may not look that compelling.
How I would look at this configuration:
+ Intel Core 2 Quad - good! I like more speed!
+ 500 GB Hard drive; + 802.11n wireless network; - that's OK. Nothing to write home about, though.
+ Blu-Ray drive for High definition; - I don't care (honestly!). May be in 2-3 years I will, but right now - NO! It is not clear if that thingy can write, but my last pack of 50 pcs DVD media was bought 2 years ago and sits largely unused in a cabinet. I am making backups on an external hard drive and saving temporary stuff to a USB stick, using MobileMe or yousendit for sending large files.
+ TV tuner; - I don't care. I am not watching or going to watch TV on my computer. I am not that big TV fan. Even when I do watch TV, I prefer the large screen. And when there are no friends or family watching with me, I am sitting with my laptop browsing the net in front of the said TV.
+ keyboard and mouse; and - yes, sure!
+ One HP 21.5 inch liquid crystal monitor; - good, is this a decent one or a piece of crap you will want to replace?
+ One all in one HP printer-scanner-copier - I kind of dislike those all in one devices, and I already have a printer and scanner anyway.
Let me see what I want:
- does it run iPhoto?
- does it run Aperture?
- how well the mail, calendar, contacts and photo library will integrate with my iPhone?
And yes, the aesthetics and emotional part: does this piece of hardware make me want it?
Don't get me wrong. I am not rich, and I may think: FU you Apple, couldn't you make something as affordable as this? But I will not by the above configuration.
I think that the average computer user is not illiterate these days and knows what he or she is looking for. And it definitely does not boil down to the price tag only. These was more or less the case when the people thought that ALL computers run Windows and you only need to choose a lowest price for a max clock speed. Not true anymore.
That is very personal opinion from one person, no doubt a 100% valid for you, but I think majority would choose printer over iPhoto.
Aperture, well... how many people actually run software like Aperture or Lightroom..?
No it is not. Mac OSX leopard makes your mac run with the efficiency of a 2x8-core overclocked monster with dual graphics card and 1 TB of RAM.
Windows, on the other hand, can make a supercomputer run like an abacus just for the sheer amount of time that is wasted getting rid of viruses and bloatware.
Mate...
Windows 6? I guess you are talking about Vista, even though it's not called that. If you are right people just won't upgrade, who really wants to spend $300 on a OS upgrade which is just going to give them hell and not actually allow them to anything more than what they can currently do?
Vista users will be the most irritated since they will be paying for basically bugs fixes.
I think most Vista users will not upgrade.
I've seen people refusing to take Vista (even take a look at it), but I can't really say I've seen people using Vista in the last year or so and not being happy with it (much as they were with XP).
I know it is hard to accept here in these waters, but after SP1 Vista is fine and drivers have matured. As it is, Vista is more stable and robust than XP ever was - or will be. My personal opinion is that it does require 512MB more RAM to have same memory performance as XP has, but that is about it.
Because you don't crash 3 times for every 4 attempts at installing 64-bit applications, and once installed applications do work.
And your answer is relevant in which way..?
I asked serious question; if you can't provide serious answer, please don't bother.
Coincidently, I am Vista 64 user, and neither of my 64 and 32 bit applications caused any problem at all.
What you are saying is completely ignorant, also a bit insulting.
Funny how XP is even better yet Vista was
launched after XP.
HUH Microsoft??
Perhaps you should investigate things like that before you speak. Apple was putting Carbon on a path for oscelescence for a decade. When moving to 64 bit they realized that developers would spend just as much time moving their UI to 64 bit carbon as they would to cocoa. Apple was wasting everybody's time with porting across the carbon UI pieces. They settled on the carbon backend but no UI.
Adobe is looking for excuses for taking so long. The fact is they have a codebase and they don't want to change it. Either way, Carbon64 or Cocoa it was adobe's job to port everything across and they've had a decade. Don't blame Apple for Adobe's product decisions, Apple gave them ample warning.
Don't blame Apple?
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
Dude it doesn't matter how more expensive you think apple is. The truth of the matter is that the efficiency of mac pays for itself in very little time. Compare that to the huge time sink that windows is and you could give me a windows machine for free and I still wouldn't touch it.
I've had less down time on my Windows machine relative to my iMac. My iMac had hardware problems that caused it to not function properly due to Apple's poor choice of parts. Then they failed to stand behind their decision to cheap out.
$500 does not pay for itself in very little time. As I said, I've had no down time on my Vista machine because I built it properly and maintain it properly. I also had to maintain my Macs as well because, like all computers, they would get gummed up a bit over time. That's why I bought Socks on the Mac, to clean up the issues that even an Unix system can have.
Show me some proof of the efficiency you speak of and not merely hearsay. I switched to Mac in the first place and it was definitely better... seven years ago. I don't find it to be that way so much anymore. I suspect Windows 7 will make it even less so.
Don't blame Apple?
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
Adobe was told the moment Apple decided not to port carbon 64.
You think Apple would dispense info to Adobe at WWDC like all the other developers? The Mac needed Adobe's professional apps for practical survival. They don't change their mind and then switch and wait a year to tell Adobe. That's just silly.
Actually the decision was made, from what i'm told from very good sources, after heavy consultation with Adobe.
But nevertheless I think you missed the boat on what I was saying. A carbon port to 64 bit would take just as long as a Carbon-to-cocoa port. There is practically no difference. Adobe is pointing at Apple saying "they promised us, it's not out fault", but the fact is A) they were told a decade before to switch to Cocoa, B ) they were told the moment the decision change occurred. C) they're saying that forced cocoa is the cause of their delays. WRONG! I was at WWDC when they explained there is no difference in porting time, and gave good reason. Either way, it wouldve taken Adobe just as long anyway. No difference.
Adobe's problem, all summed up, and the only reason you can blame these delays, is Adobe bet on Apple not removing Carbon and put all their weight on it despite Apple's continued insistance that Cocoa should be adopted immediately. If they had done that, these problems wouldn't have ever occurred. Adobe chose to stick on their path. If Apple had ported 64 carbon, they would still be just as delayed. With Apple's lack of porting they are delayed. Why? Because Adobe didn't change when Apple told all developers to.
Uh... out of pure ignorance, how's Apple 64-bit implementation more seamless..?
- Mac OS 64-bit implementation does not require a separate version. You install one and the same OS. The reports on Snow Leopard suggest that if you have 64-bit processor you may restart in either mode. You have one and the same universal binary application which may have 32 and 64 bit code in one bundle. You can require that a particular 64-capable application is launched in 32-bit mode (e.g. for plugin compatibility).
Hello, they're the ones who TOLD Adobe that Carbon-64 was going to continue forward. Had Apple killed off Carbon-64 earlier then Adobe would've moved to Cocoa sooner. I believe it was only as work went forward on Snow Leopard that they killed Carbon-64. Apple got stuck with Final Cut as well, so they even took themselves by surprise there because they planned so poorly for the future.
If Carbon was really on a path to being gone then why didn't Apple themselves move over?
Apple overpromised on Carbon, led Adobe down the wrong path, and followed that wrong path themselves. They didn't have an accurate blueprint for a 64-bit transition.
That's Apple's failure, not Adobe's. If Apple had decided against Carbon-64 in the first place then they could have gotten Adobe on the right path several years ago. They didn't.
Don't blame Adobe for Apple's failure to have a proper roadmap.
- Apparently Apple wanted to port Carbon initially. Then they realized that this is quite of a challenge. Remember, every engineering task is a matter of compromise. They had to take a look: how much work we will need? What we will gain? How long this code will be used? Carbon was around for a decade. Significant parts of the code there is more than 2 decades old. How much life would a 64-bit Carbon have? It does not make sense to spend 2 years/ thousands of man-hours on a code that will become obsolete in another two years. Then there is the question: why is Carbon still used besides the old code-base? If they do re-write Carbon, will this really help?
Cocoa is object-oriented API, Carbon is procedural API. When moving to 64 bit, this makes HUGE difference. The object in an Object-oriented language abstracts the underlying implementation. You may have NSData object, which holds, well, data. In 32-bit mode the size of the data is limited by the address space. The limit under 64-but is beyond the practical sense at this time. When this is changed, the developer needs to do NOTHING to migrate the code to 64 bit. All methods of the NSData class or other API calls where NSData instance is passed as an argument will just work. With the procedural (function based) API you can not have one and the same function which has arguments of different size or return different type. You need to keep the old functions and write new 64 bit versions. Then the developer of the client application will need to re-write the code to use the new functions with the new data types. It quite may be that Adobe was not interested in doing this either. Why spend lots of time on temporary patches if they are already moving to Cocoa anyway?
I don't think Apple should be blamed here. This is a normal engineering process. As far as Adobe is considered: they also have their reasons to be conservative. But they try to use their strength to push Apple to do their homework, to save them time and money by slowing down the innovation. Adobe is not interested in Apple's innovation for many reasons. Most importantly, they want to have equivalent functionality for the majority of the products they ship. This means that they stick to the lowest denominator and Mac OS advantages have no use for them. Then they want to have more platform-independent code base. There is no Cocoa for Windows, so they prefer procedural approach. It is easier to "map" Windows function calls to Carbon APIs then to use Cocoa API. Last but not least, Adobe does not want strong Apple.
So many people here keep to insist that all decisions made in Cupertino are either stupid, made of evil or just aim to f**k off someone, ether the consumer or a third party software/hardware vendor.
However, BR manufacturers do ship BR players with their BR drives. True, I'd like to play everything with one player, but hey. Better that than nothing.
Indeed. And any PC that ships with a Blu-Ray drive will (does) come with a copy of PowerDVD or something that can play it.
That is very personal opinion from one person, no doubt a 100% valid for you, but I think majority would choose printer over iPhoto.
Those printers they bundle with cheap PCs are complete garbage.
Aperture, well... how many people actually run software like Aperture or Lightroom..?
Well, as Macs are the choice for many in the creative arts fields, I'd say plenty.
Price and lack of options is why I switched back to Windows from the Mac. I built a quad-core 2.6GHZ AMD-based machine with a 640GB, a 24" Viewsonic 1080P display, and 8GB of memory for less than $1000. Vista 64 flies on it. Downloaded Rocketdock and now I'm perfectly happy, especially since I don't need to minimize to the dock. I always missed the Start menu and the taskbar in Windows. I love the taskbar for minimization and the Start menu to find things easily. I always had to go digging on the HDD in OSX.
I agree with you on the hardware part – I also think Apple should have more options there.
Can't agree on the user interface though. If you minimize Windows in Mac OS X you really wasting a lot of time. I basically never minimize windows (in Mac OS X), instead the excellent ability to hide and application (and hide others except the frontmost) is being used. Then it's just to use the app switcher (cmd tab, which I have mapped to the scroll wheel of the mouse by the way) to get back to the app again and all windows are where I left them. No need to spend time searching for the right window in the Dock. Also I really find it much better that Mac OS X only shows the running applications in the app switcher since I often run 20-30 apps at the same time. This would look really messy in Windows with its task bar. The same goes for the ”flip 3D” feature in Vista (windowskey tab). It's ok when some windows are on the screen but with 20+ apps it becomes a mess. Same goes for Exposé but I still think it's better because you see how the entire window looks (even if it's small with many windows on screen).
Also I'm a bit irritated on the PC I recently bought since the BIOS just died for no apparent reason, so I had to send in the motherboard for repair and I'm still waiting. Never heard of the EFI on a Mac freaking out like that, but at the same time I guess it has less options. Got to use Vista 64 on if for 30 minutes before it died though, and I agree it was pretty fast.
I understand that Apple might not let Mac OS X be ran on any PC, but I think they should offer a broader range of hardware options themselves. It doesn't have to be like Dell, but now it is a little too spartan to say the least.
Edit:
Forgot to add that I also seldom have to ”dig around” on the hard drive like you mentioned. Spotlight is really great for launching apps and getting to most folders quickly.
I've had less down time on my Windows machine relative to my iMac. My iMac had hardware problems that caused it to not function properly due to Apple's poor choice of parts. Then they failed to stand behind their decision to cheap out.
$500 does not pay for itself in very little time. As I said, I've had no down time on my Vista machine because I built it properly and maintain it properly. I also had to maintain my Macs as well because, like all computers, they would get gummed up a bit over time. That's why I bought Socks on the Mac, to clean up the issues that even an Unix system can have.
Show me some proof of the efficiency you speak of and not merely hearsay. I switched to Mac in the first place and it was definitely better... seven years ago. I don't find it to be that way so much anymore. I suspect Windows 7 will make it even less so.
Snow Leopard will make it even more so, I suspect. Note that you offer no proof for your theories, only your anecdotes. Here is my anectode. My windows machine, which I built after a lot of research and considerable amount of money self destructed after about 2 years of use. Note that I researched my build for at least 60 hours, not an unreasonable time, and used only the best quality. If I had worked those 60 hours I would have made some $3000 dollars. So any difference in price is erased off the bat.
But supposed I was considering buying a dell or gateway. In those 2 years I must have spent 4 hours a week doing upgrades, getting better antivirus software, defragging, etc, etc. By comparison I spend less than 1 hour a month maintaining my two macs. If you do the math that is about $10 thousand dollars wasted every year and you don't even get the same level of functionality the mac offers.
Adobe was told the moment Apple decided not to port carbon 64.
You think Apple would dispense info to Adobe at WWDC like all the other developers? The Mac needed Adobe's professional apps for practical survival. They don't change their mind and then switch and wait a year to tell Adobe. That's just silly.
Actually the decision was made, from what i'm told from very good sources, after heavy consultation with Adobe.
But nevertheless I think you missed the boat on what I was saying. A carbon port to 64 bit would take just as long as a Carbon-to-cocoa port. There is practically no difference. Adobe is pointing at Apple saying "they promised us, it's not out fault", but the fact is A) they were told a decade before to switch to Cocoa, B ) they were told the moment the decision change occurred. C) they're saying that forced cocoa is the cause of their delays. WRONG! I was at WWDC when they explained there is no difference in porting time, and gave good reason. Either way, it wouldve taken Adobe just as long anyway. No difference.
Adobe's problem, all summed up, and the only reason you can blame these delays, is Adobe bet on Apple not removing Carbon and put all their weight on it despite Apple's continued insistance that Cocoa should be adopted immediately. If they had done that, these problems wouldn't have ever occurred. Adobe chose to stick on their path. If Apple had ported 64 carbon, they would still be just as delayed. With Apple's lack of porting they are delayed. Why? Because Adobe didn't change when Apple told all developers to.
And so did Apple.
Why is iTunes not Cocoa? I run 64-bit iTunes and you can't do that on a Mac.
No, Adobe DID change, but they were too far along with CS4.
Apple's timing would have meant that CS4 would have been released on the PC well ahead of a Mac version. That would have been very bad for Apple.
Once again, Apple's failure to plan for moving to 64-bit is the problem here. Look at their apps.
How long has Apple had to move many of their apps over to Cocoa and yet failed to do so? Funny to hammer Adobe when Apple has also failed to implement their own API very well.