The Cube was introduced at $1799, but Apple was forced to reduce the price less than 9 months later to $1299 because it just wasn't selling. Even more rare than Apple releasing a dude is Apple making substantial price cuts after a product has been introduced (the 1st gen iPhone being one of the few exceptions). The Cube was popular amongst the Apple fanatics, but that was about it. Production was ended less than a year after it was introduced. That's success???
Yeah, the Cube was a failure. They should have come out with a G3 version as well. It was also marketed very poorly. Even to this day, most people think it wasn't upgradable or expandable, when it was both. Too bad.
Quote:
Even Steve Jobs still calls the AppleTV a hobby. Again, not exactly how I'd define success. Apple doesn't report AppleTV sales separately, so I'm not sure how you are defining "continues to sell very well." Based on the anecdotal reports we see online, AppleTV sales are pretty lukewarm.
There is at least one estimate that Apple has sold about 6.6 million of these.
I'm wondering if Apple is waiting for sales to get to a certain number before introducing some new service.
I've also thought that Apple didn't want apps or an app store until enough iPhones and Touches were out there to make it an instant success, and encourage developers to come to the party. That worked better than Apple expected, I'll bet.
Quote:
Of the three, the MBA is probably the most "successful", but it's still pretty much a niche product that does not have broad market appeal. Although the big price cuts earlier this year have helped.
I read in Computerworld, Infoworld, and Businessweek that the MBA is very popular with business people who travel a lot.
The Cube is nothing like the mini. Not even remotely!
If the Cube were being produced today, and the price was between the Mini and the iMac running at the same speed, it would sell well, IF Apple marketed it properly this time. It's the xMac.
Backplane.
Cpu on an easily replaceable card.
Easily replaceable graphics card.
Easily replaceable, and upgradable memory.
Easily replaceable HDD.
AND, one free slot.
A 9" x 9" xMac.
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
The Videos look fake. The screen ripples when touched like any LCD monitor...
Yeah that was the most obvious thing. I'd expect a glossy screen for touch... even though I dislike glossy screens. But if it's an early prototype one would expect it not to representing the final product. However I agree it's fake. A lot of work has been put into this though.
If it was to show off a software actually written for the device, and not for the iPhone it would be more interesting.
The mistake is to assume that, having made an educated guess about the form factor, you have a handle on what such a device would be (their version of a netbook, etc.). As is always the case with Apple, it's going to be the software that makes this device "different", in that "why didn't anybody think to do this before?" sort of way.
Since I'm making wild guesses, I'll go with this: Apple's multi-touch tablet will run a variant of OS X that will run iPhone apps out of the box, but that will require some dev tweaking or a recompile to run OS X apps. Apple will provide a full suite of their own apps, carefully adjusted to take full advantage of touch interface. It will be freakishly thin and light, to the point that heat dissipation will be in issue in early shipping units. It will cost more than internet pundits think it should. It will have fewer ports than internet pundits think it should. It will not have an optical drive, and that will make some people crazy.
It will be marketed as an entirely new kind of device, a "fun" digital lifestyle accessory that you toss in your purse or shoulder bag, or curl up with with coffee to read the morning blogs or double check recipes in the kitchen.
The big unknown, in my book, is if Apple will partner with a wireless carrier for that always desirable ubiquitous internet access, and offer it at a subsidized price. I could see them offer both, alalike the iPhone and the Touch. As always, the problem with carrier subsidies is the hefty data rates, which for my money, anyway, would tend to take the fun right out.
As long as, like the iPhone, there is a version that doesn't require a data plan (aka the Touch), the device could be attractive. I'm surprised at how many people are willing to pay hundreds a month to be connected to the Net everywhere. I'm less surprised that so many, on the other hand, have chosen to go without such connectivity yet enjoy the use of an untethered Internet device via a router in hotspots. Besides, if this thing has a 10-inch screen, it's not something you're likely to take with you absolutely everywhere ala an iPhone.
If Apple thinks a device retailing for so much can get away with not being able to run a fully-functioning version of Snow Leopard, they best forget about bringing this thing to market.
Ha! Advice from Internet tough guys - I love it...
Quote:
Form factor is important but what's the value of a having a device with a 10-inch screen that can't do any more than a typical iPod Touch.
And we come to the crux of your issue - shoddy assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Apple in the post-iPod era? They are hardly predictable and they know what they are doing.
It is amusing to read posts like yours tho... more so for the inevitable silence from the chicken littles such as yourself after the device is released an becomes a runaway success.
I think there may well be more than one product coming down the line.
Apple will hold an event in early Sept to launch the new iPod Touch, new iPod Nano with camera and iTunes 9. I am hoping they will also launch a large screen iPod Touch designed more for video and ebooks, although based on past experience they may hold another seperate event in October to launch this (assuming it's coming at all of course).
I think the advert they shot recently is probably something to do with taking photo's on the new iPod Nano and then using wifi in the restaurant to email them to your friends.
Some people seem to think a large screen iPod Touch is the same as a MBP Tablet but I disagree. You don't need a fully functional Tablet computer to watch a movie on the plane or read an ebook - it would be total overkill and far too expensive for mass market appeal. If it's coming Apple could then launch a MBP Tablet in early 2010 along with any other new computers.
The most important thing anyway, (and in fact the point I was making), is that Apple doesn't just release crap without thinking about sales and everything they release is released because they think it will sell at the price that they want to sell it at. They have something between a 95% and 100% sucess rate at this sort of thing and that's why I was saying all the comments about "it won't sell at that price" are dumb.
As has been pointed out, the iPhone UI was a revelation, even before the App Store. Imagine a 10" tablet with that kind of wow factor but far more capability. Imagine Spaces being incorporated as part of the experience, so that your entire app environment is never more than a flick away. Cover Flow letting you literally thumb through docs and media, with Quick Look just a tap away. Accelerometer based screen reorientation. And whither Inkwell? Has Apple possibly been slaving away on top notch handwriting recognition?
When you think about some of the things Apple has been doing with their desktop UI for that last few years, and we hear about how long this device has been in development, it makes you wonder if Apple hasn't been laying the groundwork for a different kind of computing paradigm for a while.
Excellent analysis. Apple knows the "desktop wars" are over. Feuding over market share in the traditional desktop and laptop space is pointless now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the iPod was a happy and very fortunate accident for Apple - it showed SJ and others that there was life after PC's and what you are speculating about above wouldn't surprise me in the least.
If anyone could set the industry on it's ear again, it certainly has a high probability of being Apple.
The cube was a dud - even a company like Apple can make a mistake. It was also pretty close to SJ's return...
Quote:
Even Steve Jobs still calls the AppleTV a hobby. Again, not exactly how I'd define success. Apple doesn't report AppleTV sales separately, so I'm not sure how you are defining "continues to sell very well." Based on the anecdotal reports we see online, AppleTV sales are pretty lukewarm.
I think they are doing that more for the same reason Google tags everything as Beta then over any issues with success.
If it wasn't selling enough to justify it's existence, they would nuke it. They have axed accessories before (remember their overpriced iPod speakers that got their own event?).
No, AppleTV still has a significant role to play - we just haven't seen the final pieces to the puzzle. BTW - I have several friends and family, including myself, who love the AppleTV. There is no other product on the market that integrates with iTunes so seamlessly - literally in a matter of minutes you can have all your iTunes content and photo's on your TV. Nothing else comes close. I have a hacked xbox1, an Xbox360, PS3 and multiple Tivo's. Their user experience sucks compared to the ATV.
Quote:
Of the three, the MBA is probably the most "successful", but it's still pretty much a niche product that does not have broad market appeal. Although the big price cuts earlier this year have helped.
Such a niche product and lack of "broad market appeal" that Dell and others felt compelled to copy it? So now not only is Apple stupid but so is Dell and other PC vendors? Are you sure you haven't left your tin foil hat off and forgot to listen to Art Bell lately?
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
EXplain why . ?
there both headless computers?
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
I loved the cube . And i still feel you old luddites are splitting hairs .
Except for the shape box vs rect . they both are small computers with no head .
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
The reason why marketing was a major culprit is because Apple didn't make it known to the buying public at large just what this machine was. It was like buying a pig in a poke. Or better, a silk purse in a pigs ear.
It didn't seem to have as much value as the price indicated, because people didn't know just how complex and versatile it was. Some makers had video cards for it and other internal upgrades in the short lifetime it had. But if it was better known, more would have been seen, and more people would have bought it.
The other problem as we've said, was price. More than a few of us at the time had said that they should have had both G3 and G4 models out. The G4 was an expensive processor at the time, and Apple positioned this at the performance end of their products. If the economic situation was better then, it might have succeeded, but it wasn't.
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
If the Cube were being produced today, and the price was between the Mini and the iMac running at the same speed, it would sell well, IF Apple marketed it properly this time. It's the xMac.
While I agree it was poorly marketed, part of that is likely due to nothing being there to market in the first place. It was basically a big box filled with outdated hardware and no standardized expansion.
Quote:
Backplane.
What standard did that backplanes conform to? A backplanes is useless if you don't have the volume to make it a standard in it's own right.
Quote:
Cpu on an easily replaceable card.
Easily replaceable graphics card.
Read the comments about the backplane.
Quote:
Easily replaceable, and upgradable memory.
Easily replaceable HDD.
AND, one free slot.
What was easy about the Cube?
Quote:
A 9" x 9" xMac.
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
The high price was a direct result of Apples thinking at the time. Unfortunately we still see signs of that mind set even today. That is Apple at times values form over function to the point of delivering useless hardware, for example AIR.
The Cube lost big time because it combined a poor mix of hardware with an extremely high price. Excessively high price might be the better term, for all appearances Apple was marketing design and not a computer. This is sure to leave your customers confused and angery if they have been long time computer purchasers.
Now this isn't me trying to say design isn't important as obviously it is. But in the end people go to stores to by computers with modern features and the Cube sucked in this respect. Apple simply took focus off their core business.
While I agree it was poorly marketed, part of that is likely due to nothing being there to market in the first place. It was basically a big box filled with outdated hardware and no standardized expansion.
What standard did that backplanes conform to? A backplanes is useless if you don't have the volume to make it a standard in it's own right.
Read the comments about the backplane.
What was easy about the Cube?
The high price was a direct result of Apples thinking at the time. Unfortunately we still see signs of that mind set even today. That is Apple at times values form over function to the point of delivering useless hardware, for example AIR.
The Cube lost big time because it combined a poor mix of hardware with an extremely high price. Excessively high price might be the better term, for all appearances Apple was marketing design and not a computer. This is sure to leave your customers confused and angery if they have been long time computer purchasers.
Now this isn't me trying to say design isn't important as obviously it is. But in the end people go to stores to by computers with modern features and the Cube sucked in this respect. Apple simply took focus off their core business.
Dave
You're wrong about most of what you said there. There were boards already out for the thing. It had a PCI bus. All it needed were the short cards. Not a big deal, and as I said, there were cards out for it. If it sold in larger numbers, there would have been even more cards.
There were even cpu upgrade cards out.
You're making comments about the backplane that show you aren't familiar with this machine.
The hardware wasn't outdated. That just shows you know little about it. This was an up to date machine with pretty good performance.
It was easy to remove the computer from the case, unlike with the Mini, it was designed to be upgraded by the consumer.
As long as, like the iPhone, there is a version that doesn't require a data plan (aka the Touch), the device could be attractive. I'm surprised at how many people are willing to pay hundreds a month to be connected to the Net everywhere.
Where did the hundreds a month come from? I pay $71 a month for the most part. With iPhone I got rid of my old phone line, my dial up service provider and my cell phone account. In the end my average monthly bill was only a few dollars more.
Not bad and around here (Rochester NY) my service is just as good or better than the old Verison account. Further customer service at the store was one hell of a lot better. At least so far it has been a better experience.
Quote:
I'm less surprised that so many, on the other hand, have chosen to go without such connectivity yet enjoy the use of an untethered Internet device via a router in hotspots.
Around here I hardly ever see an iPod making use of a hot spot. That might have something to do with not many of them being available and of good quality though. All in all 3G is well worth having. The iPhone is a fantastic little E-Mail machine and the net access can't be beat. My surprise was how much I would put it to use after getting it, 3G performance can be very addictive.
Quote:
Besides, if this thing has a 10-inch screen, it's not something you're likely to take with you absolutely everywhere ala an iPhone.
No one wouldn't do that but it is also why I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod line doesn't expand to include a model with a slightly bigger screen. Even a small expansion in screen size would make for a much more uasable device. We are talking something here that could remain in the pocket like iPhone yet offer up a better visual experience.
All that being said ten inches is still to big in my mind. I just don't see people carrying that sized device around comfortably.
Comments
The cube is the mini
The Cube is nothing like the mini. Not even remotely!
The Cube was introduced at $1799, but Apple was forced to reduce the price less than 9 months later to $1299 because it just wasn't selling. Even more rare than Apple releasing a dude is Apple making substantial price cuts after a product has been introduced (the 1st gen iPhone being one of the few exceptions). The Cube was popular amongst the Apple fanatics, but that was about it. Production was ended less than a year after it was introduced. That's success???
Yeah, the Cube was a failure. They should have come out with a G3 version as well. It was also marketed very poorly. Even to this day, most people think it wasn't upgradable or expandable, when it was both. Too bad.
Even Steve Jobs still calls the AppleTV a hobby. Again, not exactly how I'd define success. Apple doesn't report AppleTV sales separately, so I'm not sure how you are defining "continues to sell very well." Based on the anecdotal reports we see online, AppleTV sales are pretty lukewarm.
There is at least one estimate that Apple has sold about 6.6 million of these.
I'm wondering if Apple is waiting for sales to get to a certain number before introducing some new service.
I've also thought that Apple didn't want apps or an app store until enough iPhones and Touches were out there to make it an instant success, and encourage developers to come to the party. That worked better than Apple expected, I'll bet.
Of the three, the MBA is probably the most "successful", but it's still pretty much a niche product that does not have broad market appeal. Although the big price cuts earlier this year have helped.
I read in Computerworld, Infoworld, and Businessweek that the MBA is very popular with business people who travel a lot.
I don't know what more to expect of it.
The Cube is nothing like the mini. Not even remotely!
If the Cube were being produced today, and the price was between the Mini and the iMac running at the same speed, it would sell well, IF Apple marketed it properly this time. It's the xMac.
Backplane.
Cpu on an easily replaceable card.
Easily replaceable graphics card.
Easily replaceable, and upgradable memory.
Easily replaceable HDD.
AND, one free slot.
A 9" x 9" xMac.
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
The Videos look fake. The screen ripples when touched like any LCD monitor...
Yeah that was the most obvious thing. I'd expect a glossy screen for touch... even though I dislike glossy screens. But if it's an early prototype one would expect it not to representing the final product. However I agree it's fake. A lot of work has been put into this though.
If it was to show off a software actually written for the device, and not for the iPhone it would be more interesting.
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
type in the searchfield:
W8922DP91S0
I found it on:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=763557
The mistake is to assume that, having made an educated guess about the form factor, you have a handle on what such a device would be (their version of a netbook, etc.). As is always the case with Apple, it's going to be the software that makes this device "different", in that "why didn't anybody think to do this before?" sort of way.
Since I'm making wild guesses, I'll go with this: Apple's multi-touch tablet will run a variant of OS X that will run iPhone apps out of the box, but that will require some dev tweaking or a recompile to run OS X apps. Apple will provide a full suite of their own apps, carefully adjusted to take full advantage of touch interface. It will be freakishly thin and light, to the point that heat dissipation will be in issue in early shipping units. It will cost more than internet pundits think it should. It will have fewer ports than internet pundits think it should. It will not have an optical drive, and that will make some people crazy.
It will be marketed as an entirely new kind of device, a "fun" digital lifestyle accessory that you toss in your purse or shoulder bag, or curl up with with coffee to read the morning blogs or double check recipes in the kitchen.
The big unknown, in my book, is if Apple will partner with a wireless carrier for that always desirable ubiquitous internet access, and offer it at a subsidized price. I could see them offer both, alalike the iPhone and the Touch. As always, the problem with carrier subsidies is the hefty data rates, which for my money, anyway, would tend to take the fun right out.
As long as, like the iPhone, there is a version that doesn't require a data plan (aka the Touch), the device could be attractive. I'm surprised at how many people are willing to pay hundreds a month to be connected to the Net everywhere. I'm less surprised that so many, on the other hand, have chosen to go without such connectivity yet enjoy the use of an untethered Internet device via a router in hotspots. Besides, if this thing has a 10-inch screen, it's not something you're likely to take with you absolutely everywhere ala an iPhone.
The Cube is nothing like the mini. Not even remotely!
EXplain why . ?
there both headless computers?
If Apple thinks a device retailing for so much can get away with not being able to run a fully-functioning version of Snow Leopard, they best forget about bringing this thing to market.
Ha! Advice from Internet tough guys - I love it...
Form factor is important but what's the value of a having a device with a 10-inch screen that can't do any more than a typical iPod Touch.
And we come to the crux of your issue - shoddy assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Apple in the post-iPod era? They are hardly predictable and they know what they are doing.
It is amusing to read posts like yours tho... more so for the inevitable silence from the chicken littles such as yourself after the device is released an becomes a runaway success.
Apple will hold an event in early Sept to launch the new iPod Touch, new iPod Nano with camera and iTunes 9. I am hoping they will also launch a large screen iPod Touch designed more for video and ebooks, although based on past experience they may hold another seperate event in October to launch this (assuming it's coming at all of course).
I think the advert they shot recently is probably something to do with taking photo's on the new iPod Nano and then using wifi in the restaurant to email them to your friends.
Some people seem to think a large screen iPod Touch is the same as a MBP Tablet but I disagree. You don't need a fully functional Tablet computer to watch a movie on the plane or read an ebook - it would be total overkill and far too expensive for mass market appeal. If it's coming Apple could then launch a MBP Tablet in early 2010 along with any other new computers.
The most important thing anyway, (and in fact the point I was making), is that Apple doesn't just release crap without thinking about sales and everything they release is released because they think it will sell at the price that they want to sell it at. They have something between a 95% and 100% sucess rate at this sort of thing and that's why I was saying all the comments about "it won't sell at that price" are dumb.
Best post in this thread....
As has been pointed out, the iPhone UI was a revelation, even before the App Store. Imagine a 10" tablet with that kind of wow factor but far more capability. Imagine Spaces being incorporated as part of the experience, so that your entire app environment is never more than a flick away. Cover Flow letting you literally thumb through docs and media, with Quick Look just a tap away. Accelerometer based screen reorientation. And whither Inkwell? Has Apple possibly been slaving away on top notch handwriting recognition?
When you think about some of the things Apple has been doing with their desktop UI for that last few years, and we hear about how long this device has been in development, it makes you wonder if Apple hasn't been laying the groundwork for a different kind of computing paradigm for a while.
Excellent analysis. Apple knows the "desktop wars" are over. Feuding over market share in the traditional desktop and laptop space is pointless now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the iPod was a happy and very fortunate accident for Apple - it showed SJ and others that there was life after PC's and what you are speculating about above wouldn't surprise me in the least.
If anyone could set the industry on it's ear again, it certainly has a high probability of being Apple.
Interesting post - thank you!
The Cube was introduced at $1799...
The cube was a dud - even a company like Apple can make a mistake. It was also pretty close to SJ's return...
Even Steve Jobs still calls the AppleTV a hobby. Again, not exactly how I'd define success. Apple doesn't report AppleTV sales separately, so I'm not sure how you are defining "continues to sell very well." Based on the anecdotal reports we see online, AppleTV sales are pretty lukewarm.
I think they are doing that more for the same reason Google tags everything as Beta then over any issues with success.
If it wasn't selling enough to justify it's existence, they would nuke it. They have axed accessories before (remember their overpriced iPod speakers that got their own event?).
No, AppleTV still has a significant role to play - we just haven't seen the final pieces to the puzzle. BTW - I have several friends and family, including myself, who love the AppleTV. There is no other product on the market that integrates with iTunes so seamlessly - literally in a matter of minutes you can have all your iTunes content and photo's on your TV. Nothing else comes close. I have a hacked xbox1, an Xbox360, PS3 and multiple Tivo's. Their user experience sucks compared to the ATV.
Of the three, the MBA is probably the most "successful", but it's still pretty much a niche product that does not have broad market appeal. Although the big price cuts earlier this year have helped.
Such a niche product and lack of "broad market appeal" that Dell and others felt compelled to copy it? So now not only is Apple stupid but so is Dell and other PC vendors? Are you sure you haven't left your tin foil hat off and forgot to listen to Art Bell lately?
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
EXplain why . ?
there both headless computers?
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
I loved the cube . And i still feel you old luddites are splitting hairs .
Except for the shape box vs rect . they both are small computers with no head .
After the cube was no more apple made the mini .
You've already had an explanation from melgross, but the summary is, the Cube was designed to be a PowerMac shrunk to a small footprint. It had many upgradable components, which is why so many of us kept and used our Cubes for so long. The mini has none of that -- because it was designed as Apple's entry-level Mac.
I don't think they sold 50,000 in the entire run.
The problem with the Cube IMO wasn't marketing at all. The Cube was a brilliant bit of computer engineering, and a sight to behold, but it cost too much to manufacture. If Apple could have sold them profitably at a lower price, I believe they would have remained in production for far longer.
The reason why marketing was a major culprit is because Apple didn't make it known to the buying public at large just what this machine was. It was like buying a pig in a poke. Or better, a silk purse in a pigs ear.
It didn't seem to have as much value as the price indicated, because people didn't know just how complex and versatile it was. Some makers had video cards for it and other internal upgrades in the short lifetime it had. But if it was better known, more would have been seen, and more people would have bought it.
The other problem as we've said, was price. More than a few of us at the time had said that they should have had both G3 and G4 models out. The G4 was an expensive processor at the time, and Apple positioned this at the performance end of their products. If the economic situation was better then, it might have succeeded, but it wasn't.
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
If the Cube were being produced today, and the price was between the Mini and the iMac running at the same speed, it would sell well, IF Apple marketed it properly this time. It's the xMac.
While I agree it was poorly marketed, part of that is likely due to nothing being there to market in the first place. It was basically a big box filled with outdated hardware and no standardized expansion.
Backplane.
What standard did that backplanes conform to? A backplanes is useless if you don't have the volume to make it a standard in it's own right.
Cpu on an easily replaceable card.
Easily replaceable graphics card.
Read the comments about the backplane.
Easily replaceable, and upgradable memory.
Easily replaceable HDD.
AND, one free slot.
What was easy about the Cube?
A 9" x 9" xMac.
But due to Apple cruddy marketing, which just concentrated on its looks and size, and its high price in a difficult time, it never sold more than 50,000 units a quarter. A failure for a company of that size.
The high price was a direct result of Apples thinking at the time. Unfortunately we still see signs of that mind set even today. That is Apple at times values form over function to the point of delivering useless hardware, for example AIR.
The Cube lost big time because it combined a poor mix of hardware with an extremely high price. Excessively high price might be the better term, for all appearances Apple was marketing design and not a computer. This is sure to leave your customers confused and angery if they have been long time computer purchasers.
Now this isn't me trying to say design isn't important as obviously it is. But in the end people go to stores to by computers with modern features and the Cube sucked in this respect. Apple simply took focus off their core business.
Dave
While I agree it was poorly marketed, part of that is likely due to nothing being there to market in the first place. It was basically a big box filled with outdated hardware and no standardized expansion.
What standard did that backplanes conform to? A backplanes is useless if you don't have the volume to make it a standard in it's own right.
Read the comments about the backplane.
What was easy about the Cube?
The high price was a direct result of Apples thinking at the time. Unfortunately we still see signs of that mind set even today. That is Apple at times values form over function to the point of delivering useless hardware, for example AIR.
The Cube lost big time because it combined a poor mix of hardware with an extremely high price. Excessively high price might be the better term, for all appearances Apple was marketing design and not a computer. This is sure to leave your customers confused and angery if they have been long time computer purchasers.
Now this isn't me trying to say design isn't important as obviously it is. But in the end people go to stores to by computers with modern features and the Cube sucked in this respect. Apple simply took focus off their core business.
Dave
You're wrong about most of what you said there. There were boards already out for the thing. It had a PCI bus. All it needed were the short cards. Not a big deal, and as I said, there were cards out for it. If it sold in larger numbers, there would have been even more cards.
There were even cpu upgrade cards out.
You're making comments about the backplane that show you aren't familiar with this machine.
The hardware wasn't outdated. That just shows you know little about it. This was an up to date machine with pretty good performance.
It was easy to remove the computer from the case, unlike with the Mini, it was designed to be upgraded by the consumer.
As long as, like the iPhone, there is a version that doesn't require a data plan (aka the Touch), the device could be attractive. I'm surprised at how many people are willing to pay hundreds a month to be connected to the Net everywhere.
Where did the hundreds a month come from? I pay $71 a month for the most part. With iPhone I got rid of my old phone line, my dial up service provider and my cell phone account. In the end my average monthly bill was only a few dollars more.
Not bad and around here (Rochester NY) my service is just as good or better than the old Verison account. Further customer service at the store was one hell of a lot better. At least so far it has been a better experience.
I'm less surprised that so many, on the other hand, have chosen to go without such connectivity yet enjoy the use of an untethered Internet device via a router in hotspots.
Around here I hardly ever see an iPod making use of a hot spot. That might have something to do with not many of them being available and of good quality though. All in all 3G is well worth having. The iPhone is a fantastic little E-Mail machine and the net access can't be beat. My surprise was how much I would put it to use after getting it, 3G performance can be very addictive.
Besides, if this thing has a 10-inch screen, it's not something you're likely to take with you absolutely everywhere ala an iPhone.
No one wouldn't do that but it is also why I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod line doesn't expand to include a model with a slightly bigger screen. Even a small expansion in screen size would make for a much more uasable device. We are talking something here that could remain in the pocket like iPhone yet offer up a better visual experience.
All that being said ten inches is still to big in my mind. I just don't see people carrying that sized device around comfortably.