I think anyone with sense if talking about quad core chips and cpu power that is available in machines costing half the price of an iMac.
*Shrugs. Don't let reality get in the way of zealout.
It beggars reason that Apple will STILL offer dual core iMacs. What's that, Toto? A SECOND side-grade for the iMac in the space of a year?
Blue ray? Whoop. Dual core? Whoop. Some low end gpu? Whoop.
A trimming of the price they grossly inflated here in the UK?
Trim a millimetre off the bezel? Whoop.
A ******************* disgrace of an upgrade.
Still, it hasn't landed. Who knows. Maybe some i7 'hyper-threaded' class cpu may land in the high end.
Looks like the model of '08 still reigns supreme. I can't say I'm glad about that fact. I'd rather the iMac move forwards. Still with the style over substance.
Hello, greater than 90% of the computer market is Windows based PCs - where do you think the greatest concentration of consumer use of computers are then? So yes, consumer use of Macs is a recent trend. Macs are still mostly (until I see numbers to the contrary) used by people who made them popular in the first place - graphics professionals, movie makers, desktop publishers, and scientists - all people that are more demanding of their equipment than your average web browsing, Microsoft Word processing user (who for the most part are using Windows PCs). Plus the consumer side of the computer market is a very small percentage of the overall computer market which is dominated by business use of computers - and business users are more demanding of their computers than the average home user.
I would think that this assumption about who uses/buys Macs is wrong as it pertains to the mac market and Apple's growth objectives. Your belief that because most PCs are corporately bought (not sure but sounds plausible) is most likely the opposite for Macs. Look at the growth in Mac sales and your gut feel seems very out of place. Christmas quarter 2003 - 829K macs sold, same Q 2008 2.3M macs sold. 2003 was when Apple was much more supported by the traditional "Pro" crowd.
Of the 1.5M more macs sold now (in a quarter), hardly any would be going to traditional mac "pro user" shops, who if anything have been drifting away from the Mac as Adobe software etc. gets better for PCs. With the advent of the Apple Stores, most of those are going to consumers and prosumers (incl students), with some growth in institutional education. Corporate Mac penetration remains very low.
Consumers are the vastly bigger segment of the Apple pie right now and likely for a long time to come. Corporate and Govt sales ops in Apple are weak at best (esp. vs. Dell, HP and in-house IT departments).
The financial argument (from Apple's PoV) for an xMac has been debunked many times. Margins on standard PC boxes are razor thin and apple would struggle to differentiate theirs. It would inevitably cannibalize profitable iMac sales and would be a net negative to every P&L line except maybe revenue (which is debatable in itself). It would be a great computer (I'd buy one) but a terrible business decision. After all, Apple is not valued on a Price to Revenue basis is it? For reference Dell 2008 $61Bn rev $2.9Bn NI, Apple $32Bn rev, $4.8Bn NI. Who wants to be Dell? Note that Apple's Mac margins are not much lower than iPod/iPhone margins either.
As Consumers (non-gamers) are now the dominant Mac buyers, then you arguments hold no water since most people wandering into an Apple store could care less about the guts in the machine only that it does all their tasks lickety split! This only gets better with SL vs L so Apple are unlikely to need to go all out on hardware equivalency. Leave spec sheets to gamers and techie nerds, neither of which are a market niche Apple has ever cared about.
The niche of Pro users can still rationally evaluate whether they need a Pro, or an iMac or a PC but they are no longer the primary concern of Apple.
PS - Unrelated to the Mac market, most business users are also probably no more demanding on their computers than consumers except in the areas of durability and toughness since most PC sit around in offices doing offic-y things - nothing a pentium 4 couldn't manage unless it was trying to run Vista. Only a small proportion of the 92K users in my company need anything over a Pentium M for running complex software development runtimes etc.
Most of the ads I see for Windows PCs don't even mention clock speed anymore.
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
I would think that this assumption about who uses/buys Macs is wrong as it pertains to the mac market and Apple's growth objectives. Your belief that because most PCs are corporately bought (not sure but sounds plausible) is most likely the opposite for Macs. Look at the growth in Mac sales and your gut feel seems very out of place. Christmas quarter 2003 - 829K macs sold, same Q 2008 2.3M macs sold. 2003 was when Apple was much more supported by the traditional "Pro" crowd.
Of the 1.5M more macs sold now (in a quarter), hardly any would be going to traditional mac "pro user" shops, who if anything have been drifting away from the Mac as Adobe software etc. gets better for PCs. With the advent of the Apple Stores, most of those are going to consumers and prosumers (incl students), with some growth in institutional education. Corporate Mac penetration remains very low.
Consumers are the vastly bigger segment of the Apple pie right now and likely for a long time to come. Corporate and Govt sales ops in Apple are weak at best (esp. vs. Dell, HP and in-house IT departments).
The financial argument (from Apple's PoV) for an xMac has been debunked many times. Margins on standard PC boxes are razor thin and apple would struggle to differentiate theirs. It would inevitably cannibalize profitable iMac sales and would be a net negative to every P&L line except maybe revenue (which is debatable in itself). It would be a great computer (I'd buy one) but a terrible business decision. After all, Apple is not valued on a Price to Revenue basis is it? For reference Dell 2008 $61Bn rev $2.9Bn NI, Apple $32Bn rev, $4.8Bn NI. Who wants to be Dell? Note that Apple's Mac margins are not much lower than iPod/iPhone margins either.
As Consumers (non-gamers) are now the dominant Mac buyers, then you arguments hold no water since most people wandering into an Apple store could care less about the guts in the machine only that it does all their tasks lickety split! This only gets better with SL vs L so Apple are unlikely to need to go all out on hardware equivalency. Leave spec sheets to gamers and techie nerds, neither of which are a market niche Apple has ever cared about.
The niche of Pro users can still rationally evaluate whether they need a Pro, or an iMac or a PC but they are no longer the primary concern of Apple.
PS - Unrelated to the Mac market, most business users are also probably no more demanding on their computers than consumers except in the areas of durability and toughness since most PC sit around in offices doing offic-y things - nothing a pentium 4 couldn't manage unless it was trying to run Vista. Only a small proportion of the 92K users in my company need anything over a Pentium M for running complex software development runtimes etc.
First of all there is no "Mac Market" as I have constantly been berated on here by the like of Melgross and others - There is only the personal computer market of which Mac is a part. As of the 4th quarter of 2008, Apple only had a 3.4% of world-wide computer sales. A very tiny number, so any assumptions you make have to be taken inconsideration of that.
Frankly it doesn't matter, because without a scientific survey by users of how they use their Macs, we will never no the true usage scenario of Macs and that's a shame because I think it could help software and hardware developers better target Apple's customers.
I never brought up the xMac, so I don't even know why you are bringing it up, it's irrelevant in this discussion.
As far as user demands of a computer - how can you compare a business user who typical runs 3 - 4 applications simultaneously for 8 hours or more a day, to a home user that uses maybe one or two applications for 2 - 3 hours a day max? Clearly the business user makes more use of their computer, requiring something more powerful than a consumer focused machine. That's why businesses use desktops and not netbooks.
PS. I know quite a few developers that would lynch you if you tried to make them use a Pentium M for software development - especially complex software development.
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
So I imagine that everyone using a laptop as a primary machine, which, remember, is increasingly the norm, are doing nothing more than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail?
For that matter, what was everybody doing with their PC desktop computers a year ago? Using DOS so as not to bring them to their knees?
It's all well and good to want Apple to make a more powerful desktop machine. It's beyond asinine to pretend like the machines they do make are crippled and antiquated and incapable of doing "real" computing.
BTW, after you put forward your "Some of us want to......" formulation, you're supposed to say "Have fun with your blank, I'll think of you while I'm blanking with my blank."
So I imagine that everyone using a laptop as a primary machine, which, remember, is increasingly the norm, are doing nothing more than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail?
For that matter, what was everybody doing with their PC desktop computers a year ago? Using DOS so as not to bring them to their knees?
It's all well and good to want Apple to make a more powerful desktop machine. It's beyond asinine to pretend like the machines they do make are crippled and antiquated and incapable of doing "real" computing.
No actually I was being critical of his numerous assertions that somehow being a Mac user for 25 years (which is probably stretching the truth seeing how the first Macs cost thousands of dollars and very few people could afford them, myself included) makes him any more knowledgeable on the topic than anyone else in this discussion.
And frankly your assertion that all most users do with their computers is surf the web and maybe do a bit of word processing is equivalent to my statement about the capabilities of the Apple IIe. If you were around back then, I'm sure you would of tried to make the same argument that nobody needs more than a 68k processor when the Intel 386 came out. Yet years later, here we are, people are using, and need, faster computers every year.
You can criticize them all you like, I'm not even defending them-- clearly, for some subset of potential customers, a laptop masquerading as a desktop isn't ideal.
However, it's simply pointless to demand that Apple put a given processor into the next iMac, make claims about what they "must" do, or generally carry on like there was some terrible deficiency in play that makes Apple look foolish.
They've been doing this for quite a while now, why would you expect them to suddenly change up their strategy? Laptop parts keep getting more capable, they can do what most people want them to do, and Apple likes to make its machines as small as possible, the end.
Apple isn't gong to abruptly make the iMac a lot thicker or noisier to accommodate desktop parts. They just aren't, that's how they roll. The arguments about what they "should" do are as old as the hills and haven't gotten any more sophisticated: Apple should make a more powerful machine that costs less.
Sure. And they will. Just not to the degree you want.
And from a profit standpoint Apple is right to deny us more powerful machines. Why? Because faster computers last longer. Selling machines that don't need to be replaced as often reduces sales. It's really simple math.
The higher income people who can afford to buy the latest new look are Apple's ONLY target market for the iMac. They don't want anyone who cares about performance per dollar, matte screens, decent GPUs or user accessible hard drive bays. All those things would cost Apple more and they believe they would not increase sales enough to compensate.
Apple has said many times they don't want to sell the most hardware; they want to sell the best. Right now they're doing neither, but have convinced a wealthy demographic that their stuff is worth paying for and that's all that matters.
What that focus does is alienate a group of people who want to run Mac OS X, but are offered no suitable hardware to put it on. A fair number of those people are regular contributors to forums such as this. We quite rightly put our own self interest first and want a machine that Apple will not make.
Apple does have one small problem with us. We're incredibly loud in our demands for something they don't want to make. Thus we have the potential to dissuade people within Apple's true target market from making purchases. Obviously Apple wants to shut us up, but the questions are how much that would cost and whether it's even achievable.
If they make a mini-tower it'll lower the complaint level to a low din, but that's the most dangerous form factor for them because it's hard to differentiate it from generic PCs and because their consumer target market would customize them and drive support costs through the roof.
Making the iMac good enough for us would take away from its appeal in the form over function demographic they currently earn so much profit from so they won't do that either.
I think they can't win and they know it. They're trying the do nothing approach and hope it's better than any of the other choices they could have made.
That leaves us with nothing but hackintosh machines. Maybe Apple wouldn't mind if we all bought one and shut up about their limited product line, but they can't seem to be supporting that option because of Psystar and their ilk.
Hoping we'll be satisfied with nothing and simply shut up is wishful thinking though.
I really, really, really hope the dual core thing will be only for the base 20" model at most... if Apple doesn't come with a decent quad-core processor inside (Core i5 or the mobile Core i7) than this is just plain sad. Every bigger and smaller company is introducing a quad-core notebooks and Apple having the brand new multi-processor optimised Snow Leopard OS and then a sad old slow dual core processor in a revamped iMac body... please don't... please please dont! Apple can do so much better...
Why be vague with your response, say what you mean man.
You and Addabox seem to think that Americans should be dumb and not care about what they are buying. That they should just over-pay and make Apple richer for outdated hardware.
Clearly, several other posters disagree with your sentiment. They all know the difference between 2 cores and 4 cores. It's pretty simple - 4 is more than 2 - surely you don't mean to say that Americans can't do simple math?
Just because a Hyundai Accent can do 80 MPH, doesn't mean we should trade our Ford Mustangs for one - true?
Would you rather a debate on healthcare reform? I'm sure as a doctor you could offer some valuable insight as to why or why we shouldn't reform healthcare?
Comments
I would prefer a february update with Arrandale CPUs
Arrandale =
- cooler than Clarksfield (easier to put in iMac, MB, MBP)
- cooler than C2D if you disable the integrated GPU
- a lot cheaper (1000$ high end Clarksfield vs 332$ high end Arrandale)
- faster clock than Clarksfield (better for apps not multi core optimized like games)
- (integrated GPU for MB)
and February = chance to get an ATI 58xx option (or nVidia GT300)
Links:
Arrandale
ATI radeon 58xx (desktop version)
-*
Seriously though, does anyone outside of gear hounds think in terms of "yesterday's technology", especially when it comes to chip sets?
In a word, no. In two words, no and no.
Most of the ads I see for Windows PCs don't even mention clock speed anymore.
You're talking about the lower chips in the line.
I think anyone with sense if talking about quad core chips and cpu power that is available in machines costing half the price of an iMac.
*Shrugs. Don't let reality get in the way of zealout.
It beggars reason that Apple will STILL offer dual core iMacs. What's that, Toto? A SECOND side-grade for the iMac in the space of a year?
Blue ray? Whoop. Dual core? Whoop. Some low end gpu? Whoop.
A trimming of the price they grossly inflated here in the UK?
Trim a millimetre off the bezel? Whoop.
A ******************* disgrace of an upgrade.
Still, it hasn't landed. Who knows. Maybe some i7 'hyper-threaded' class cpu may land in the high end.
Looks like the model of '08 still reigns supreme. I can't say I'm glad about that fact. I'd rather the iMac move forwards. Still with the style over substance.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Hello, greater than 90% of the computer market is Windows based PCs - where do you think the greatest concentration of consumer use of computers are then? So yes, consumer use of Macs is a recent trend. Macs are still mostly (until I see numbers to the contrary) used by people who made them popular in the first place - graphics professionals, movie makers, desktop publishers, and scientists - all people that are more demanding of their equipment than your average web browsing, Microsoft Word processing user (who for the most part are using Windows PCs). Plus the consumer side of the computer market is a very small percentage of the overall computer market which is dominated by business use of computers - and business users are more demanding of their computers than the average home user.
I would think that this assumption about who uses/buys Macs is wrong as it pertains to the mac market and Apple's growth objectives. Your belief that because most PCs are corporately bought (not sure but sounds plausible) is most likely the opposite for Macs. Look at the growth in Mac sales and your gut feel seems very out of place. Christmas quarter 2003 - 829K macs sold, same Q 2008 2.3M macs sold. 2003 was when Apple was much more supported by the traditional "Pro" crowd.
Of the 1.5M more macs sold now (in a quarter), hardly any would be going to traditional mac "pro user" shops, who if anything have been drifting away from the Mac as Adobe software etc. gets better for PCs. With the advent of the Apple Stores, most of those are going to consumers and prosumers (incl students), with some growth in institutional education. Corporate Mac penetration remains very low.
Consumers are the vastly bigger segment of the Apple pie right now and likely for a long time to come. Corporate and Govt sales ops in Apple are weak at best (esp. vs. Dell, HP and in-house IT departments).
The financial argument (from Apple's PoV) for an xMac has been debunked many times. Margins on standard PC boxes are razor thin and apple would struggle to differentiate theirs. It would inevitably cannibalize profitable iMac sales and would be a net negative to every P&L line except maybe revenue (which is debatable in itself). It would be a great computer (I'd buy one) but a terrible business decision. After all, Apple is not valued on a Price to Revenue basis is it? For reference Dell 2008 $61Bn rev $2.9Bn NI, Apple $32Bn rev, $4.8Bn NI. Who wants to be Dell? Note that Apple's Mac margins are not much lower than iPod/iPhone margins either.
As Consumers (non-gamers) are now the dominant Mac buyers, then you arguments hold no water since most people wandering into an Apple store could care less about the guts in the machine only that it does all their tasks lickety split! This only gets better with SL vs L so Apple are unlikely to need to go all out on hardware equivalency. Leave spec sheets to gamers and techie nerds, neither of which are a market niche Apple has ever cared about.
The niche of Pro users can still rationally evaluate whether they need a Pro, or an iMac or a PC but they are no longer the primary concern of Apple.
PS - Unrelated to the Mac market, most business users are also probably no more demanding on their computers than consumers except in the areas of durability and toughness since most PC sit around in offices doing offic-y things - nothing a pentium 4 couldn't manage unless it was trying to run Vista. Only a small proportion of the 92K users in my company need anything over a Pentium M for running complex software development runtimes etc.
Dual core? I think most users were hoping of Core i7 based machines...
not a dual core again - please! i don't want another laptop with 24"... i want more power for $1200
Dual core? I think most users were hoping of Core i7 based machines...
not a dual core again - please! i don't want another laptop with 24"... i want more power for $1200
No kidding.
Apple offer 3 laptops and 2 others (total of 5) masquerading as desktops. Le biscuit tin. Le laptop on a stand.
Lemon Bon Bon.
In a word, no. In two words, no and no.
Most of the ads I see for Windows PCs don't even mention clock speed anymore.
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
A nice, thoughtful reply. Always welcomed.
I would think that this assumption about who uses/buys Macs is wrong as it pertains to the mac market and Apple's growth objectives. Your belief that because most PCs are corporately bought (not sure but sounds plausible) is most likely the opposite for Macs. Look at the growth in Mac sales and your gut feel seems very out of place. Christmas quarter 2003 - 829K macs sold, same Q 2008 2.3M macs sold. 2003 was when Apple was much more supported by the traditional "Pro" crowd.
Of the 1.5M more macs sold now (in a quarter), hardly any would be going to traditional mac "pro user" shops, who if anything have been drifting away from the Mac as Adobe software etc. gets better for PCs. With the advent of the Apple Stores, most of those are going to consumers and prosumers (incl students), with some growth in institutional education. Corporate Mac penetration remains very low.
Consumers are the vastly bigger segment of the Apple pie right now and likely for a long time to come. Corporate and Govt sales ops in Apple are weak at best (esp. vs. Dell, HP and in-house IT departments).
The financial argument (from Apple's PoV) for an xMac has been debunked many times. Margins on standard PC boxes are razor thin and apple would struggle to differentiate theirs. It would inevitably cannibalize profitable iMac sales and would be a net negative to every P&L line except maybe revenue (which is debatable in itself). It would be a great computer (I'd buy one) but a terrible business decision. After all, Apple is not valued on a Price to Revenue basis is it? For reference Dell 2008 $61Bn rev $2.9Bn NI, Apple $32Bn rev, $4.8Bn NI. Who wants to be Dell? Note that Apple's Mac margins are not much lower than iPod/iPhone margins either.
As Consumers (non-gamers) are now the dominant Mac buyers, then you arguments hold no water since most people wandering into an Apple store could care less about the guts in the machine only that it does all their tasks lickety split! This only gets better with SL vs L so Apple are unlikely to need to go all out on hardware equivalency. Leave spec sheets to gamers and techie nerds, neither of which are a market niche Apple has ever cared about.
The niche of Pro users can still rationally evaluate whether they need a Pro, or an iMac or a PC but they are no longer the primary concern of Apple.
PS - Unrelated to the Mac market, most business users are also probably no more demanding on their computers than consumers except in the areas of durability and toughness since most PC sit around in offices doing offic-y things - nothing a pentium 4 couldn't manage unless it was trying to run Vista. Only a small proportion of the 92K users in my company need anything over a Pentium M for running complex software development runtimes etc.
First of all there is no "Mac Market" as I have constantly been berated on here by the like of Melgross and others - There is only the personal computer market of which Mac is a part. As of the 4th quarter of 2008, Apple only had a 3.4% of world-wide computer sales. A very tiny number, so any assumptions you make have to be taken inconsideration of that.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...rket-share.ars
Frankly it doesn't matter, because without a scientific survey by users of how they use their Macs, we will never no the true usage scenario of Macs and that's a shame because I think it could help software and hardware developers better target Apple's customers.
I never brought up the xMac, so I don't even know why you are bringing it up, it's irrelevant in this discussion.
As far as user demands of a computer - how can you compare a business user who typical runs 3 - 4 applications simultaneously for 8 hours or more a day, to a home user that uses maybe one or two applications for 2 - 3 hours a day max? Clearly the business user makes more use of their computer, requiring something more powerful than a consumer focused machine. That's why businesses use desktops and not netbooks.
PS. I know quite a few developers that would lynch you if you tried to make them use a Pentium M for software development - especially complex software development.
A nice, thoughtful reply. Always welcomed.
Pot, meet kettle...
Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?
So I imagine that everyone using a laptop as a primary machine, which, remember, is increasingly the norm, are doing nothing more than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail?
For that matter, what was everybody doing with their PC desktop computers a year ago? Using DOS so as not to bring them to their knees?
It's all well and good to want Apple to make a more powerful desktop machine. It's beyond asinine to pretend like the machines they do make are crippled and antiquated and incapable of doing "real" computing.
BTW, after you put forward your "Some of us want to......" formulation, you're supposed to say "Have fun with your blank, I'll think of you while I'm blanking with my blank."
It's right there in the Dickipedia.
Now, now. Be nice. Techstud has allergies!
So noted.
Heh heh. On the matter of density, man, you have no peer! You da stud!
As I have clearly stated before: Techstud is neither.
So I imagine that everyone using a laptop as a primary machine, which, remember, is increasingly the norm, are doing nothing more than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail?
For that matter, what was everybody doing with their PC desktop computers a year ago? Using DOS so as not to bring them to their knees?
It's all well and good to want Apple to make a more powerful desktop machine. It's beyond asinine to pretend like the machines they do make are crippled and antiquated and incapable of doing "real" computing.
No actually I was being critical of his numerous assertions that somehow being a Mac user for 25 years (which is probably stretching the truth seeing how the first Macs cost thousands of dollars and very few people could afford them, myself included) makes him any more knowledgeable on the topic than anyone else in this discussion.
And frankly your assertion that all most users do with their computers is surf the web and maybe do a bit of word processing is equivalent to my statement about the capabilities of the Apple IIe. If you were around back then, I'm sure you would of tried to make the same argument that nobody needs more than a 68k processor when the Intel 386 came out. Yet years later, here we are, people are using, and need, faster computers every year.
You can criticize them all you like, I'm not even defending them-- clearly, for some subset of potential customers, a laptop masquerading as a desktop isn't ideal.
However, it's simply pointless to demand that Apple put a given processor into the next iMac, make claims about what they "must" do, or generally carry on like there was some terrible deficiency in play that makes Apple look foolish.
They've been doing this for quite a while now, why would you expect them to suddenly change up their strategy? Laptop parts keep getting more capable, they can do what most people want them to do, and Apple likes to make its machines as small as possible, the end.
Apple isn't gong to abruptly make the iMac a lot thicker or noisier to accommodate desktop parts. They just aren't, that's how they roll. The arguments about what they "should" do are as old as the hills and haven't gotten any more sophisticated: Apple should make a more powerful machine that costs less.
Sure. And they will. Just not to the degree you want.
And from a profit standpoint Apple is right to deny us more powerful machines. Why? Because faster computers last longer. Selling machines that don't need to be replaced as often reduces sales. It's really simple math.
The higher income people who can afford to buy the latest new look are Apple's ONLY target market for the iMac. They don't want anyone who cares about performance per dollar, matte screens, decent GPUs or user accessible hard drive bays. All those things would cost Apple more and they believe they would not increase sales enough to compensate.
Apple has said many times they don't want to sell the most hardware; they want to sell the best. Right now they're doing neither, but have convinced a wealthy demographic that their stuff is worth paying for and that's all that matters.
What that focus does is alienate a group of people who want to run Mac OS X, but are offered no suitable hardware to put it on. A fair number of those people are regular contributors to forums such as this. We quite rightly put our own self interest first and want a machine that Apple will not make.
Apple does have one small problem with us. We're incredibly loud in our demands for something they don't want to make. Thus we have the potential to dissuade people within Apple's true target market from making purchases. Obviously Apple wants to shut us up, but the questions are how much that would cost and whether it's even achievable.
If they make a mini-tower it'll lower the complaint level to a low din, but that's the most dangerous form factor for them because it's hard to differentiate it from generic PCs and because their consumer target market would customize them and drive support costs through the roof.
Making the iMac good enough for us would take away from its appeal in the form over function demographic they currently earn so much profit from so they won't do that either.
I think they can't win and they know it. They're trying the do nothing approach and hope it's better than any of the other choices they could have made.
That leaves us with nothing but hackintosh machines. Maybe Apple wouldn't mind if we all bought one and shut up about their limited product line, but they can't seem to be supporting that option because of Psystar and their ilk.
Hoping we'll be satisfied with nothing and simply shut up is wishful thinking though.
It's right there in the Dickipedia.
Again, pot, meet kettle
Pot, meet kettle...
Even if true, not an excuse. And not true.
Even if true, not an excuse. And not true.
Why be vague with your response, say what you mean man.
You and Addabox seem to think that Americans should be dumb and not care about what they are buying. That they should just over-pay and make Apple richer for outdated hardware.
Clearly, several other posters disagree with your sentiment. They all know the difference between 2 cores and 4 cores. It's pretty simple - 4 is more than 2 - surely you don't mean to say that Americans can't do simple math?
Just because a Hyundai Accent can do 80 MPH, doesn't mean we should trade our Ford Mustangs for one - true?
Would you rather a debate on healthcare reform? I'm sure as a doctor you could offer some valuable insight as to why or why we shouldn't reform healthcare?