Apple killed the clones because their line up in the mid-late nineties was extremely confusing, with a lot of machines that overlapped each other. They were also selling every peripheral under the sun and not competing well in those areas.
When Jobs returned, his first order of business was to simplify the product lines (adios Newton) and it's been a good profit making formula.
Sculley was an idiot. He had no idea what computers were all about. Jobs comes from the ranks of people like Robert Noyce who have passion and imagination for the business. Job's track record with Apple, Next and Pixar is amazing. I would not count him out for coming up with great solutions to Apple's product mix.
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
I'm still debating. \
No dream machine? Fine. Dump the Mac Mini. (You'd think they would at least include a keyboard! How's that for out of the box experience?) I'm sure a variety of consumers have unique uses for it. I can't imagine that Apple wouldn't see more of a profit margin on a Mac Pro Mini and leave the top end components for the Mac Pro. It's not like 1993 when Apple had LCs, Performas, Centris, & Quadras lines. It's just one more PROFITABLE line. I assume current Mac popularity in order of sales are: iMacs, Mac Mini, Mac Pros. (no clue about last two....) Add a Mac Pro Mini -- iMacs, Mac Pro Mini, Mac Mini, Mac Pros. (again, no clue about last two). I wonder if Apple has a plan for 'fence sitters'. It just seems like it's 'take it or leave it'. It's too bad Apple doesn't have their OWN clone company with more options.
I just wish I knew why Apple sacrifices performance and upgradability for style, low power consumption and recyclability. Why not use cheaper and better performing desktop components used in comparable PCs instead of lesser performing and yet more expensive mobile variants? [Apple, if you're so concerned about 'saving the earth' with lower power consumption dump the Mac Pro! ]
As it stands, the iMac is just a glorified laptop. Apple REALLY should just release a Mac Pro Mini to accommodate desktop components, plus give the owner a longer production life for their computer.
I'm sure the new iMac will be a success, but not good enough to fully exploit Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL with the capable technology available in the price ranges they'll use. Hopefully the Xeon processors are a better solution at the same price point of the Clarksdale processors.
Apple site is updating. Click on Imac tab and then click to buy and the site tells you its updating.
I saw your post at 11:37pm Pacific on 10/16/09 and quickly went to check the online Apple Store, which at the time was showing "2 weeks" estimated shipping times for ALL iMac models, and the shipping time didn't change based on BTO options. However, a check again this morning has those shipping times back to "within 24 hours". So that's pretty interesting... how does an estimated ship time swing by 2 weeks in the matter of a few hours??? Hmmmm....
I also noticed that Mac mini ship times are 3-5 business days, but I don't know if that's how it normally is. And lastly, all MacBook models (white, Pro, and Air) were and still are showing "within 24 hours" for shipping times.
As far as the Blu-Ray discussion, I don't see Apple making a move to include Blu-Ray unless the attached monitor is capable of resolving all 1920x1080 pixels. Assuming Apple's display technologies remain roughly the same with the next refresh, that effectively limits blu-ray to only the high-res 17" MBP and 24" iMacs. They could add blu-ray to the Mac Pro and Mac Mini, but would then have to resolve issues with screen scaling if those machines are attached to anything that displays less than that resolution.
Then there is the issue of cost. On a wholesale basis, Blu-Ray burners are roughly 4x-5x more expensive than DVD+/-RW drives, but that's just hardware only. You then have to tack on licensing expenses. Finally, according to Nielsen First Alert in January, Blu-Ray's home adoption was at about 17%, but the expected adoption is not expected to accelerate significantly over the next year, especially with the economy as it is. For many homes, adding a Blu-Ray drive also means replacing a non-1080i/p capable television set as well. From a cost and market penetration standpoint, the rewards aren't significant.
For those who want blu-ray, it's not difficult to swap out the drives in your MacBooks, iMacs, Mac Minis, or Mac Pros. Drives are readily available and will playback regular CDs/DVDs just fine on your Mac without any additional software. You just can't playback blu-ray discs, and you will need Toast to burn blu-ray discs. But that's the only current limitation.
It certainly would be nice if after Steve's inevitable song and dance announcing the new iMac that a knowledgeable computer hardware engineer could offer a rebuttal of what is feasible hardware wise at a comparable price point with the pros and cons of each system (disregarding the OS), since Steve himself leveled the playing field.
If Dell can offer their XPS One with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (with 95W TDP), you'd think Apple could use the i5 750 or i7 860 (with 95W TDP). Who knows. Maybe with the promise of a thinner display, Apple will go to a LED-lit LCD display on top of a stylish pizza box with better cooling capabilities than the current iMac. I'm afraid Apple will continue with their Bang & Olufsen minimalistic-designed hardware, instead of McIntosh performing hardware.
I just wonder how close it will be in price to a Windows system I priced -- Dell Studio XPS 8000 with i7 860 hyper-threaded CPU @ 2.80GHz (with 3.46GHz TurboBurst), nVidia GTX260 1.75GB GPU, 4GB DDR3 @ 1066MHz, 1TB @ 7200rpm, Blu-Ray burner, 24" 1920x1080 HD monitor and the big selling point in this forum (sarcasm) Windows Vista Home Premium....
Price? $1839
Of course, Apple will probably be offering a new Mighty Mouse and iLife. And even an SD slot.
But most likely no Blu-Ray (reader or writer) and still -- a lesser GPU -- and most of all -- a lesser CPU.
Sorry, the Clarksfield i7-720QM @ 1.6GHz (with 2.8GHz TurboBurst) CPUs just doesn't cut it. Especially at the price point Dell is capable of selling an i7 860 and with the knowledge (at this point) you'd be getting laptop components (outside of the 1920x1200 monitor) with Apple and desktop components with Dell.
You might be interested in this review which includes benchmarks of the top of the line mobile CPU i7-920XM ($1054) against a variety of desktop processors. It can't match the i5-750 ($196) in most tests. -- http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...Review/?page=1
With these benchmarks, why would anyone want an i7-720QM ($364)?
Steve - Just don't try to foist a stylish bill of goods on us with the promise of saving the earth. You really can't promise anyone that. (Though admittedly, each one does their own individual part).
Though who knows. Maybe a comparable Xeon (to an i7 860, of course) would be worth it.
Sorry to belabor all this. Here's hoping Apple can create a comparably performing iMac (or Mac Pro Mini) in the same price range -- or at least the same universe.
Who knows. Since the Mac Pro is also due for an update, maybe that would also be the time to introduce my 'pie in the sky' dream of a Mac Pro Mini. I just would hope if that were the case (again, I'm probably dreaming) that the iMac and Mac Pro were both announced at the same time.
Sorry, the Clarksfield i7-720QM @ 1.6GHz (with 2.8GHz TurboBurst) CPUs just doesn't cut it. Especially at the price point Dell is capable of selling an i7 860 and with the knowledge (at this point) you'd be getting laptop components (outside of the monitor) with Apple and desktop components with Dell.
Steve - Just don't try to foist a bill of goods on us with the promise of saving the earth. You really can't promise anyone that. (Though admittedly, each one does their own individual part).
Though who knows. Maybe a comparable Xeon (to an i7 860, of course) would be worth it.
Sorry to belabor all this. Here's hoping Apple can create a comparably powered iMac (or Mac Pro Mini) in the same price range -- or at least the same universe.
One thing I DO know -- I'd rather have Mac OS X.
Apple is healthy. Dell, less so.
Apple has to MAKE OS X. And as an OS it's superior to Windows 7. Dell doesn't.
Why not ask Steve to buy you a pony too? Because that's about as likely as a mini-tower.
If you are a PC maker, how do you differentiate yourself and what added value do you bring to the table? Your hardware components come from Intel same as everyone else and your software comes from Microsoft, same as everyone else. The only way to differentiate yourself is to stuff the highest processor you can in your box at the lowest possible margin of profit and ride it out until everyone else gets on board and then start all over again. Very risky business model.
Apple on the other hand controls both the hardware and software and for the software at least they have no competition. So their business model is a bit different: put the best possible user experience on the table with BOTH hardware performance and software ease of use in the best possible quality product with the highest return on investment. Under this formula, Apple does not generally go for the latest Intel processor at the highest quantity price.
That said, I do wish they would bump up their stuff a bit keeping wattage and cost in line with their enclosures.
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
Switching back to Windows is a bad move in my estimation. One should at the very least consider FreeBSD or Linux. Especially if your usage revolves around the Internet. These two OS's are far more robust when facing the Internet than Windows.
Yeah a lot of Windows apps don't run, no surprise there though some code will under Wine. So you have to evaluate reliability vs breadth of consummer level apps.
In any event I always see this AIR of defeatism when talking about movine away from Apple and going to Windows. You do have lots of choices that being willing to make can change your attitude. It isn't just Linux either as BeOS, Solaris and even an Open Source windows can be found for modern hardware. There are probably other solutions to, just realize Windows isn't your only choice.
Linux and FreeBSD where mentioned separately because each is fairly solid and good performers. I also have some experience with Linux. At a low level both are similar to Mac OS. That is command line tools are pretty much the same. FreeBSD also shares history with OS/X. Also running Gnome or KDE isn't as bad as it use to be.
I expected "rumors" and leaks this weeekend. Having none causes me to think an update isn't going to happend near term. At the rate it's going they will miss the Christmas shoppers.
I expected "rumors" and leaks this weeekend. Having none causes me to think an update isn't going to happend near term. At the rate it's going they will miss the Christmas shoppers.
Dave
I know... we'll the rumor have been swirling for 4 weeks now that Apple is "ready" with the new iMac and iBook line and it's up to the management to give it a go but as you see, they just keep on delaying and delaying and still no date or press conference scheduled which means either no update or just a small one which in both cases is bad news... or another possibility is some sort of "iPod Touch camera" style last minute glitch with the new line and the whole process got delayed just before the release. The worst thing about it is, there's nothing any of us can do... just wait, and wait, and then wait a bit more! \
22 of October is getting closer and closer, could Apple be so mean as to release new hardware the very same day as that other Steve "Monkey Boy" is having a release party for some OS?
I expected "rumors" and leaks this weeekend. Having none causes me to think an update isn't going to happend near term. At the rate it's going they will miss the Christmas shoppers.
We're 24 hours away from the release of the the iMac.
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
You gotta wonder what is more punishment, having a PC whose OS isn't quite up to the hardware or having OSX, knowing all the things its capable of, but also knowing your iMac can't take advantage of most of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
We're 24 hours away from the release of the the iMac.
Perhaps, but as others have said the rumor mill is pretty silent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
That was a year or so ago, now is now, things change, blu-ray licensing structure and fees are one of those things.
The reason blu-ray will not appear on them is Apple has invested too much in their semi-HD downloads
Those aren't exactly catching on either as match the DRM bag of hurt and raise it a couple chips.
Perhaps, but as others have said the rumor mill is pretty silent.
I thought Apple was going to go with the Media Event rollout, as they usually do with big upgrades.
But I think I see what's going on here.
Apple's strategy is to stay quiet about the iMac until the Tuesday launch. But that still gives the media two full days to work mentions of the "unexpected iMac upgrade" into every single article and news story about the Windows 7 rollout.
I think Apple is planning to use Microsoft's own news cycle against them. Clever, aren't they?
I thought Apple was going to go with the Media Event rollout, as they usually do with big upgrades.
But I think I see what's going on here.
Apple's strategy is to stay quiet about the iMac until the Tuesday launch. But that still gives the media two full days to work mentions of the "unexpected iMac upgrade" into every single article and news story about the Windows 7 rollout.
I think Apple is planning to use Microsoft's own news cycle against them. Clever, aren't they?
Could well be.
Think about the way the iPod Nano sunk the Zune launch.
Apple are mixing it with M$. And they're coming out on top.
That Windows 95 launch is starting to look like a one trick pony. Apple aren't in a deep sleep this time.
Comments
Apple killed the clones because their line up in the mid-late nineties was extremely confusing, with a lot of machines that overlapped each other. They were also selling every peripheral under the sun and not competing well in those areas.
When Jobs returned, his first order of business was to simplify the product lines (adios Newton
Sculley was an idiot. He had no idea what computers were all about. Jobs comes from the ranks of people like Robert Noyce who have passion and imagination for the business. Job's track record with Apple, Next and Pixar is amazing. I would not count him out for coming up with great solutions to Apple's product mix.
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
I'm still debating.
No dream machine? Fine. Dump the Mac Mini. (You'd think they would at least include a keyboard! How's that for out of the box experience?) I'm sure a variety of consumers have unique uses for it. I can't imagine that Apple wouldn't see more of a profit margin on a Mac Pro Mini and leave the top end components for the Mac Pro. It's not like 1993 when Apple had LCs, Performas, Centris, & Quadras lines. It's just one more PROFITABLE line. I assume current Mac popularity in order of sales are: iMacs, Mac Mini, Mac Pros. (no clue about last two....) Add a Mac Pro Mini -- iMacs, Mac Pro Mini, Mac Mini, Mac Pros. (again, no clue about last two). I wonder if Apple has a plan for 'fence sitters'. It just seems like it's 'take it or leave it'. It's too bad Apple doesn't have their OWN clone company with more options.
I just wish I knew why Apple sacrifices performance and upgradability for style, low power consumption and recyclability. Why not use cheaper and better performing desktop components used in comparable PCs instead of lesser performing and yet more expensive mobile variants? [Apple, if you're so concerned about 'saving the earth' with lower power consumption dump the Mac Pro!
As it stands, the iMac is just a glorified laptop. Apple REALLY should just release a Mac Pro Mini to accommodate desktop components, plus give the owner a longer production life for their computer.
I'm sure the new iMac will be a success, but not good enough to fully exploit Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL with the capable technology available in the price ranges they'll use. Hopefully the Xeon processors are a better solution at the same price point of the Clarksdale processors.
You think Apple has a convoluted product line? Look at the listing of Intel Xeon processors -- http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...x?familyID=594
Again, hopefully Apple will 'Think Different' with the new iMac.
In any case, I await to see what Apple will yank out their posterior in the near future....
I know. Take a laxative. It's just a computer.
You think Apple has a convoluted product line? Look at the listing of Intel Xeon processors -- http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...x?familyID=594
Here's the perfect processor for the iMacs and MacBook computers:
Xeon X7460 6 core processor, only 130 watts, $2,729 in quantity. Apple can advertise the computers as Oven replacements!
Apple site is updating. Click on Imac tab and then click to buy and the site tells you its updating.
I saw your post at 11:37pm Pacific on 10/16/09 and quickly went to check the online Apple Store, which at the time was showing "2 weeks" estimated shipping times for ALL iMac models, and the shipping time didn't change based on BTO options. However, a check again this morning has those shipping times back to "within 24 hours". So that's pretty interesting... how does an estimated ship time swing by 2 weeks in the matter of a few hours??? Hmmmm....
I also noticed that Mac mini ship times are 3-5 business days, but I don't know if that's how it normally is. And lastly, all MacBook models (white, Pro, and Air) were and still are showing "within 24 hours" for shipping times.
As far as the Blu-Ray discussion, I don't see Apple making a move to include Blu-Ray unless the attached monitor is capable of resolving all 1920x1080 pixels. Assuming Apple's display technologies remain roughly the same with the next refresh, that effectively limits blu-ray to only the high-res 17" MBP and 24" iMacs. They could add blu-ray to the Mac Pro and Mac Mini, but would then have to resolve issues with screen scaling if those machines are attached to anything that displays less than that resolution.
Then there is the issue of cost. On a wholesale basis, Blu-Ray burners are roughly 4x-5x more expensive than DVD+/-RW drives, but that's just hardware only. You then have to tack on licensing expenses. Finally, according to Nielsen First Alert in January, Blu-Ray's home adoption was at about 17%, but the expected adoption is not expected to accelerate significantly over the next year, especially with the economy as it is. For many homes, adding a Blu-Ray drive also means replacing a non-1080i/p capable television set as well. From a cost and market penetration standpoint, the rewards aren't significant.
For those who want blu-ray, it's not difficult to swap out the drives in your MacBooks, iMacs, Mac Minis, or Mac Pros. Drives are readily available and will playback regular CDs/DVDs just fine on your Mac without any additional software. You just can't playback blu-ray discs, and you will need Toast to burn blu-ray discs. But that's the only current limitation.
If Dell can offer their XPS One with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (with 95W TDP), you'd think Apple could use the i5 750 or i7 860 (with 95W TDP). Who knows. Maybe with the promise of a thinner display, Apple will go to a LED-lit LCD display on top of a stylish pizza box with better cooling capabilities than the current iMac. I'm afraid Apple will continue with their Bang & Olufsen minimalistic-designed hardware, instead of McIntosh performing hardware.
I just wonder how close it will be in price to a Windows system I priced -- Dell Studio XPS 8000 with i7 860 hyper-threaded CPU @ 2.80GHz (with 3.46GHz TurboBurst), nVidia GTX260 1.75GB GPU, 4GB DDR3 @ 1066MHz, 1TB @ 7200rpm, Blu-Ray burner, 24" 1920x1080 HD monitor and the big selling point in this forum (sarcasm) Windows Vista Home Premium....
Price? $1839
Of course, Apple will probably be offering a new Mighty Mouse and iLife. And even an SD slot.
But most likely no Blu-Ray (reader or writer) and still -- a lesser GPU -- and most of all -- a lesser CPU.
Sorry, the Clarksfield i7-720QM @ 1.6GHz (with 2.8GHz TurboBurst) CPUs just doesn't cut it. Especially at the price point Dell is capable of selling an i7 860 and with the knowledge (at this point) you'd be getting laptop components (outside of the 1920x1200 monitor) with Apple and desktop components with Dell.
You might be interested in this review which includes benchmarks of the top of the line mobile CPU i7-920XM ($1054) against a variety of desktop processors. It can't match the i5-750 ($196) in most tests. -- http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...Review/?page=1
With these benchmarks, why would anyone want an i7-720QM ($364)?
Steve - Just don't try to foist a stylish bill of goods on us with the promise of saving the earth. You really can't promise anyone that. (Though admittedly, each one does their own individual part).
Though who knows. Maybe a comparable Xeon (to an i7 860, of course) would be worth it.
Sorry to belabor all this. Here's hoping Apple can create a comparably performing iMac (or Mac Pro Mini) in the same price range -- or at least the same universe.
Who knows. Since the Mac Pro is also due for an update, maybe that would also be the time to introduce my 'pie in the sky' dream of a Mac Pro Mini. I just would hope if that were the case (again, I'm probably dreaming) that the iMac and Mac Pro were both announced at the same time.
One thing I DO know -- I'd rather have Mac OS X.
Sorry, the Clarksfield i7-720QM @ 1.6GHz (with 2.8GHz TurboBurst) CPUs just doesn't cut it. Especially at the price point Dell is capable of selling an i7 860 and with the knowledge (at this point) you'd be getting laptop components (outside of the monitor) with Apple and desktop components with Dell.
Steve - Just don't try to foist a bill of goods on us with the promise of saving the earth. You really can't promise anyone that. (Though admittedly, each one does their own individual part).
Though who knows. Maybe a comparable Xeon (to an i7 860, of course) would be worth it.
Sorry to belabor all this. Here's hoping Apple can create a comparably powered iMac (or Mac Pro Mini) in the same price range -- or at least the same universe.
One thing I DO know -- I'd rather have Mac OS X.
Apple is healthy. Dell, less so.
Apple has to MAKE OS X. And as an OS it's superior to Windows 7. Dell doesn't.
Why not ask Steve to buy you a pony too? Because that's about as likely as a mini-tower.
Apple on the other hand controls both the hardware and software and for the software at least they have no competition. So their business model is a bit different: put the best possible user experience on the table with BOTH hardware performance and software ease of use in the best possible quality product with the highest return on investment. Under this formula, Apple does not generally go for the latest Intel processor at the highest quantity price.
That said, I do wish they would bump up their stuff a bit keeping wattage and cost in line with their enclosures.
...........
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
Switching back to Windows is a bad move in my estimation. One should at the very least consider FreeBSD or Linux. Especially if your usage revolves around the Internet. These two OS's are far more robust when facing the Internet than Windows.
Yeah a lot of Windows apps don't run, no surprise there though some code will under Wine. So you have to evaluate reliability vs breadth of consummer level apps.
In any event I always see this AIR of defeatism when talking about movine away from Apple and going to Windows. You do have lots of choices that being willing to make can change your attitude. It isn't just Linux either as BeOS, Solaris and even an Open Source windows can be found for modern hardware. There are probably other solutions to, just realize Windows isn't your only choice.
Linux and FreeBSD where mentioned separately because each is fairly solid and good performers. I also have some experience with Linux. At a low level both are similar to Mac OS. That is command line tools are pretty much the same. FreeBSD also shares history with OS/X. Also running Gnome or KDE isn't as bad as it use to be.
Alternatives are good!
Dave
Dave
I expected "rumors" and leaks this weeekend. Having none causes me to think an update isn't going to happend near term. At the rate it's going they will miss the Christmas shoppers.
Dave
I know... we'll the rumor have been swirling for 4 weeks now that Apple is "ready" with the new iMac and iBook line and it's up to the management to give it a go but as you see, they just keep on delaying and delaying and still no date or press conference scheduled which means either no update or just a small one which in both cases is bad news... or another possibility is some sort of "iPod Touch camera" style last minute glitch with the new line and the whole process got delayed just before the release. The worst thing about it is, there's nothing any of us can do... just wait, and wait, and then wait a bit more!
I expected "rumors" and leaks this weeekend. Having none causes me to think an update isn't going to happend near term. At the rate it's going they will miss the Christmas shoppers.
We're 24 hours away from the release of the the iMac.
So, you'd prefer to punish yourself with a Windows box? Go for it.
You gotta wonder what is more punishment, having a PC whose OS isn't quite up to the hardware or having OSX, knowing all the things its capable of, but also knowing your iMac can't take advantage of most of them.
We're 24 hours away from the release of the the iMac.
Perhaps, but as others have said the rumor mill is pretty silent.
That was a year or so ago, now is now, things change, blu-ray licensing structure and fees are one of those things.
The reason blu-ray will not appear on them is Apple has invested too much in their semi-HD downloads
Those aren't exactly catching on either as match the DRM bag of hurt and raise it a couple chips.
Perhaps, but as others have said the rumor mill is pretty silent.
I thought Apple was going to go with the Media Event rollout, as they usually do with big upgrades.
But I think I see what's going on here.
Apple's strategy is to stay quiet about the iMac until the Tuesday launch. But that still gives the media two full days to work mentions of the "unexpected iMac upgrade" into every single article and news story about the Windows 7 rollout.
I think Apple is planning to use Microsoft's own news cycle against them. Clever, aren't they?
I think Apple is planning to use Microsoft's own news cycle against them. Clever, aren't they?
Clever and too clever are often separated by a razor thin margin.
We'll see if anything happens this week.
I thought Apple was going to go with the Media Event rollout, as they usually do with big upgrades.
But I think I see what's going on here.
Apple's strategy is to stay quiet about the iMac until the Tuesday launch. But that still gives the media two full days to work mentions of the "unexpected iMac upgrade" into every single article and news story about the Windows 7 rollout.
I think Apple is planning to use Microsoft's own news cycle against them. Clever, aren't they?
Could well be.
Think about the way the iPod Nano sunk the Zune launch.
Apple are mixing it with M$. And they're coming out on top.
That Windows 95 launch is starting to look like a one trick pony. Apple aren't in a deep sleep this time.
Lemon Bon Bon.
So it is starting to look like iNerds predictions regarding iMacs may come true....
hmm would be nice!
No Media event means speed bumps only.
Apple NEVER releases major equipment upgrades without the press being invited.
No Media event means speed bumps only.
They have before.