plenty of companies in the tech industry give their customers a little heads up about future products... apple, however, does not. Apple likes to keep everything quiet untill they release a new product. It really is a pain in the arse... By giving in a little they could possibly control all this rumoring and maybe even get a little more market share if consumers knew for a fact what apple had up it's sleeve... some may say Apple doesn't want others in the industry to copy something before it comes out but that's just plain unrealistic. The fact that everyone knows that the entire powermac line is as to apple as unused preference files are to the system folder. I certainly won't buy one... not now. If the powermacs are updated with new processors i'm not going to be happy with the tibook line staying at its current speeds. As a pro model the tibook line is NOT where it should be. As a pro user I feel ignored.
<strong>The powermac line is due for an update. It will get one, soon.
I don't understand all the anger being directed towards the powermac lineup. If Apple had given the powermacs some lame half-assed update at MWSF, then I'd be pissed too. But they didn't even touch the powermacs! To me this means that the powermacs are about to get a bitchin' update real soon.
Why not wait until the powermacs are updated, and THEN complain if they don't meet your expectations? It's not like we've been stuck at 867 MHz for 18 months.
LOL, I'm still laughing at the dork who sold his Powermac before MWSF so he could get more money for it, which he would then put towards one of the new powermacs! For the love of GOD! No matter how real rumors seem, they are just that, rumors. Basing important purchasing decisions on rumors is akin to guiding one's life using astrological charts and palm reader's advice. Fire up the incense, light a few dozen candles, and get the chants out, time to predict the new G5's clockspeed!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. I'll agree for the most part. But Quicksilver purchasers paid too much for those machines. We'll understand that as soon as the new Powermacs come out. As for making important purchases, you don't have to worry. If apple comes out with anything less than a G5 tower sales will be modest at best. Powerusers don't want to get burned again.
[quote]No way. You know that the Cube didn't sell because it was originally $1799. Jobs priced it that way because he was sure the design would sell the product. That was a terrible management
decision by Jobs. By the time it reached 1299 it was to late. Your point about 999 hurting higher end Power Mac sales is EXACTLY my point. Apple has created their own problem here with the price ranges. A 3500 dollar tower is foolish ant this point. FYI: BusinessWeek has an article on Macworld this week and they basically say that while the new i-mac is nice, many, including the media were expecting much more thanks to the "count on being blown away" scam. Yes, they mentioned that slogan in particular.<hr></blockquote>
The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.
Oh my god the ship is sinking Apple is going down the tubes and Armageddon is upon us. WOW! Apple has just released the finest consumer computer EVER in my HUMBLE opinion. Go the **** home engine, you will eat your ass upon the announcement of the G4 (G5) Powermacs. I PROMISE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO.
While the towers are underpowered, I believe the real issue are the faithful Apple diehards who follow it's every frickin' move! (I'm guilty of this myself)
No other computer company have the feverish following that Apple does. Do you ever hear people complain that the new Dell is missing this or that? No, because even Dell owners just accept mediocrity.
While it fun to speculate and sometimes complain, many really need to chill out.
Go see a movie, spend more time with your girlfriend, or just be productive with what you have.
The reason for all the anger directed at the PowerMac line is simple. Apple refuses to sell anything that you can attach a monitor for less than $1699.
The PowerMac line is slow and outdated. People would buy something else except for Apple intentionally limits the video out options of everything else in the line.
All people are (and have been asking for) is a reasonably priced Mac that you can plug a monitor into. I myself am a school teacher. I don't have a need for the fastest machine in all of creation. However I do appreciate value and I also appreciate my flat screen 19 inch crt monitor.
I like the pricing of the new iMacs, however I do not need a new monitor, nor do I want to pay additional for the LCD. The only option available to me is either a horribly outdated education Powermac at $1200 (533 mhz G4, Rage 128 and only a cd-rom, not even a cd-r)
On top of overpricing the PowerMac line, they intentionally limit the options. You cannot buy a $1699 PowerMac and add a superdrive. Apple makes the only real "value" in the line the $2500 model. They also NEVER pass on the cost savings when the parts that make up the Powermac drop. Are we really to believe that the $100 (remember the line use to have a DVD and be $1599) is still necessary a year later?
Why does a "pro" machine still ship with no level 3 cache (a cited difference between the iMac and PowerMac) 128 megs of sdram, and STILL only a 5400 rpm drive.
Here is what Dell would be willing to ship me today to use with my 19 inch monitor.
1.6 ghz P4
256 megs of sdram
dell keyboard and MS Intellimouse
40 gig U/ATA 100 7200 rpm drive
24x/10x/40x cd-rw drive
32 meg ati rage ultra (easily replaced)
harmon kardon speakers (additional cost with Mac)
56k modem
10/100 ethernet
The price... $789 with free shipping.
The Apple solution with 256 megs of ram and speakers is $1808 dollars.
That is over a thousand dollar difference.
Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.
People like myself are upset because we have to justify $1800 to ourselves when similar machines from Dell and others are more than $1000 cheaper.
The specs of this $999 machine are really not significant. G3 vs G4, Superdrive or cd-r, etc... the point is really that Apple will not sell you machine that you can plug a machine that you can just plug a monitor into. Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.
Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business. Thus we would probably pay $999 for such a machine with slightly lower specs (Apple would likely only give us 128 megs of ram for example and probably a slower cd burner) We literally wouldn't mind paying a little more for a little less spec wise because we care about integration and again would pay more for it, but Apple simply won't offer it.
You whiners really need to stop and think about things.
1. Apple's desktops machines cost more for the same "specs". Get over it. So stop this "If I go to Dell's site..." garbage. Dells costs less because they are lesser machines. If you disagree, buy one. And don't complain when XP won't even recognize your keyboard. (this happened to a coworker today, had to go back to Win98 - you get what you pay for)
2. Before the iMacs, Apple was selling Performas with lesser video capabilities too. Many of those models didn't accept video cards to drive 19" monitors either. You had to go for the more expensive pro line to get slots to accept bigger video cards. That's the way Apple makes money. If you don't like it, then take your business elsewhere. Apple is making money, so obviously not everyone agrees with you.
3. Apple is making money. They are doing things right. I've seen so many armchair CEOs recommend ridiculous things like sell a $999 Cube (the thing costs more than $999 to market, produce, and sell, no matter what processor you stick in there) that common sense would dictate Apple lose money off of every sale.
4. Anyone who disagrees with you is NOT an Apple apologist, under Steve's RDF, or other such nonsense. I don't think Apple produces perfect products either, but I realize that Apple continues to improve them, and they can't have the perfect lineup 365 days a year. It takes time.
Whew! My rant's done. Now I will wait for the new towers to arrive. I'm sure I will like them.
<strong> Steve Jobs has to either release top of the line products with all the trimmings or he needs to step down. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):
iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto
Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.
"The March quarter is one of product transitioning, but we remain optimistic about our growth prospects for the year because of a strong lineup of new products and a robust pipeline of new products yet to come," Anderson said. "Mac OX is gaining momentum, our vision of a digital lifestyle is beginning to take hold, we have full complement of best in class digital products, more retail stores are coming, and the iPod is very successful."
That is a quote I believe., and it sounds somewhat promising for march, and April maybe.
1.6 GHz processors(2.2GHz if you like that intel stuff)
mobile versions of Athlon4 and P4(i'm not too sure on this one)
DDR SDRam
Geforce3 ti 500
NForce with hypertransport & integrated audio
raid on motherboard
ata133
160GB Hard Drive
$399 15" lcd
"SuperDrives" DVD-RW or DVD+RW
Geforce2Go
ATi Radeon mobility
btw i'm a huge mac fan, and i believe that even despite the current specs of the offered machines they are faster than anything on the pc side, not benchmark wise, productivity wise, it definitely more than evens it out. But... pc makers constantly release new motherboards and newer processors, and newer technology on a REGULAR basis. the pc market is constantly in a state of change, the mac platform seems as though it is stuck in quicksand.
I say FVCK the MacWorld Expo's release new hardware when you can. Don't sit on the sh it. If you have a newer faster processor release it when its ready. Maybe people wont be so dissapointed when an expo comes around and they get year old technology.
I will forever buy the mac platform until Apple goes bellyup, which i hope isnt soon. But i will also buy PC hardware just so i can stay somewhat out of the quicksand.
I think some of you just take people like Engine, the one who started this thread (with a million like it), far too seriously. . . Look at how emotional and exaggerative his and others' messages are within their posts! Did it ever occur to you that these individuals might have had a bad day, a big fight, too much stress, Windows at their day job, or just sold their Power Mac on eBay before MacWorld, foolishly expecting a new G5--because on these rumor forums we heard "G5! G5! G5!" so much that we just brainwashed ourselves it was GOING to happen? Maybe you should think about these things. . . it seems to me like most people are just venting frustrations because they didn't get their way, not that there is anything at all wrong with that. Human nature, folks. So maybe try to understand the other guy--relax and take a few deep breaths--and think of the positive things about the Mac platform, OS X, Apple Computer, and Steve Jobs. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):
iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto
Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And a nice Unix based operating system that will work way into the future.
So maybe try to understand the other guy--relax and take a few deep breaths--and think of the positive things about the Mac platform, OS X, Apple Computer, and Steve Jobs. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Uh, no. You see it's the other way around. I could care less about this stuff beyond using these machines as workstations. Regardless, it's very predictable when people like yourself make the argument you just made. What I don't understand is the complete devotion some out there have for a computer manufacturer (Apple) that often rips you off. It's just a computer. A thing. So explain to me why many of the Mac fan club despise Dell, or Intel and the great evil of them all Microsoft. Please. Tell it like it is. When it's going good in the Mac community grown men and women constantly attack anything from Microsoft and or Pentium's processors. So which is it, does Microsoft suck or Dell? Why do they "suck"? Because the marketing team at Apple says so? Cmon! If I am guilty of one thing it's that I am fascinated as to what point blind Mac loyalist will ever say something beyond "he posted that because he is angry" etc BS simply because some truth is being stated. Read my original post. My point was and is that Apple has gone from creating solid dependable products a few years back to hyping moderate hardware while trying to become the Sharper Image of the computer industry. This discussion is about the viewing of business practices which happens to be a very interesting one from an average outsiders perspective. That's all. At least explain how paying near 900 dollars more for a Mac tower is worth it just "because it's a Mac". That my friend is just pathetic.
Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.
....
Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.
....
Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds like you DO mind the premium that you pay to get an Apple instead of a Dell. Isn't that the whole point of your message?
Apple will never compete with Dell. Dell is taking pre-existing technology and packaging it using the highest possible business efficiencies, selling at razor-thin margins and surviving only because they move such massive quantities.
If Apple had a 7% gross margin, the only thing keeping them from being bankrupt within two quarters would be their huge cash reserves. They couldn't possibly increase their sales volume enough to cover their fixed costs at those margins. Apple turned a 30% gross margin and STILL just barely made a net profit for the quarter.
It simply isn't an option for Apple to try to play Dell's game. If you're comparing Dell machines to Apple machines and wondering why the price difference, there are lots of reasons for it. The biggest reason is that Apple must bear nearly ALL the hardware and software development costs for the machines they create. Dell just buys parts from third parties and bolts it together, then installs somebody else's OS and software on it.
Saying "But I could get a computer at Dell for so much less" is like walking into a nice restaurant, taking a look at the menu, and then complaining to the manager that "I could get a whole meal at McDonald's for three and a half bucks!" Granted, my analogy is flawed in that Dell is making machines that meet or beat Apple's in terms of specs. But the point is, you're comparing a company that's a pure mass-manufacturing entity, and comaring it to one that does an awful lot of other things, creates value in other ways.
My point was and is that Apple has gone from creating solid dependable products a few years back to hyping moderate hardware while trying to become the Sharper Image of the computer industry. This discussion is about the viewing of business practices which happens to be a very interesting one from an average outsiders perspective. That's all. At least explain how paying near 900 dollars more for a Mac tower is worth it just "because it's a Mac". That my friend is just pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has NEVER been the cheapest, "lowest common denominator" computer manufacturer. There have been times when Apple was selling Powermacs with processors that were as fast as the fastest Windows processors (or faster) but if Motorola can't give them faster chips right now, what do you expect them to do about it? Sell the machines for half price?
Honestly, if you don't think it's "worth it," then don't buy it. I don't blame you for being frustrated if you think Apple used to be more competitive than it was before -- that's definitely true in terms of the processor speed of the Powermacs (at least until the next revision which COULD be soon) at the moment. You can be pretty sure that if Apple could get faster processors from Moto, they WOULD.
But it's not like Steve Jobs comes over to your house and twists your arm to buy each new Powermac revision. if you think they suck, if you think Dell's spokesdude Steven is your kinda fella, then buy a Dell and I'm sure you'll be happier. This extreme anger and talk about being "ripped off" is just bizarre.
The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.
<hr></blockquote>
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, Apple bragged about the cube having the highest margin of any consumer computer on the market.
It was overpriced because of greed and stupidity, no other reasons.
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, Apple bragged about the cube having the highest margin of any consumer computer on the market.
It was overpriced because of greed and stupidity, no other reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't say that. Obviously you must be angry and or had a bad day at work to say such a thing about the marketing of the Cube. Those defective power buttons were INTENDED to go off and on randomly for the fun of it you see.
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it does work that way. Apple is borrowing money from its profits to sink into the R&D budget. In order for a product which, like the Cube, requires a significant R&D investment to be created, it must return a profit margin enough to more than cover the cost of the R&D. Otherwise you go broke designing terrific products.
Why is the iMac so cheap? Because, as you pointed out, it's a Cube with a monitor. There were greatly reduced R&D costs, because many engineering problems were already previously solved.
<strong>So explain to me why many of the Mac fan club despise Dell, or Intel and the great evil of them all Microsoft. Please. Tell it like it is. So which is it, does Microsoft suck or Dell? Why do they "suck"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They suck because of their utter and abject disregard, bordering on self-abnegating apathy, for any consideration of humanity, aesthetics, or the idea of art, in the design and production of their products.
They suck because they appeal to the antithesis of the creative process - the mere participation in the manufacturing of objects and ideas.
They suck because they represent a vision of computing utterly devoid of the human soul.
I am not a graphic artist, a video producer, or even a writer. I do no page layout. I have no idea what Photoshop filters are. iMovie exists upon my machine merely because I have not gotten around to deleting it. I am not a photographer.
I spent two years as a Windows software developer. Every night, after contemplating a day spent negotiating with and condescending to acknowledge a world of grey interface elements on a grey background, sterile system text, unambitiously adequate user interface, and machinery devoted to Purpose rather than to Creation, I thanked a merciful God that some alternative existed.
That is why I am a Macintosh user. And yes, I am willing to part with some mere sum of money to be one.
Before I head off into dreamland I thought I'd be partial and give my likes and dislike regarding Apple in the last year or so.
The Good:
1)OSX is very nice. Everything looks sharp and so far has not crashed on me once. That is impressive.
2)iTunes, iMovie and 10.1. iMovie is especially nice because of it's easy interface and semi-professional results. These types of Programs are Apple's strong suits.
3)Radeon and Gforce cards. Bringing the Macs up to date finally.
4)Titanium Powerbooks; best Apple product out there. It needs no false hype either. Beautifully designed.
The Bad:
1)Two somewhat flat Macworlds (with the exception of the consumer who may love the new i-Mac)
2)Blue Dalmation and Flower Power iMacs. Reaching the bottom of the barrel for any computer company
especially Apple.
3)Handling of the Cube. Overpriced was bad enough but the faulty switches and "cracks" should never have happened.
4)Powermacs. Overpriced and (very)underpowered. Don't know who's fault it was/is but it can't continue if Apple is to survive. Hopefully this can be fixed in the next week or two.
I think I have been fair. Maybe some of you can offer a similar list.
Comments
<strong>The powermac line is due for an update. It will get one, soon.
I don't understand all the anger being directed towards the powermac lineup. If Apple had given the powermacs some lame half-assed update at MWSF, then I'd be pissed too. But they didn't even touch the powermacs! To me this means that the powermacs are about to get a bitchin' update real soon.
Why not wait until the powermacs are updated, and THEN complain if they don't meet your expectations? It's not like we've been stuck at 867 MHz for 18 months.
LOL, I'm still laughing at the dork who sold his Powermac before MWSF so he could get more money for it, which he would then put towards one of the new powermacs! For the love of GOD! No matter how real rumors seem, they are just that, rumors. Basing important purchasing decisions on rumors is akin to guiding one's life using astrological charts and palm reader's advice. Fire up the incense, light a few dozen candles, and get the chants out, time to predict the new G5's clockspeed!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine. I'll agree for the most part. But Quicksilver purchasers paid too much for those machines. We'll understand that as soon as the new Powermacs come out. As for making important purchases, you don't have to worry. If apple comes out with anything less than a G5 tower sales will be modest at best. Powerusers don't want to get burned again.
decision by Jobs. By the time it reached 1299 it was to late. Your point about 999 hurting higher end Power Mac sales is EXACTLY my point. Apple has created their own problem here with the price ranges. A 3500 dollar tower is foolish ant this point. FYI: BusinessWeek has an article on Macworld this week and they basically say that while the new i-mac is nice, many, including the media were expecting much more thanks to the "count on being blown away" scam. Yes, they mentioned that slogan in particular.<hr></blockquote>
The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
No other computer company have the feverish following that Apple does. Do you ever hear people complain that the new Dell is missing this or that? No, because even Dell owners just accept mediocrity.
While it fun to speculate and sometimes complain, many really need to chill out.
Go see a movie, spend more time with your girlfriend, or just be productive with what you have.
The PowerMac line is slow and outdated. People would buy something else except for Apple intentionally limits the video out options of everything else in the line.
All people are (and have been asking for) is a reasonably priced Mac that you can plug a monitor into. I myself am a school teacher. I don't have a need for the fastest machine in all of creation. However I do appreciate value and I also appreciate my flat screen 19 inch crt monitor.
I like the pricing of the new iMacs, however I do not need a new monitor, nor do I want to pay additional for the LCD. The only option available to me is either a horribly outdated education Powermac at $1200 (533 mhz G4, Rage 128 and only a cd-rom, not even a cd-r)
On top of overpricing the PowerMac line, they intentionally limit the options. You cannot buy a $1699 PowerMac and add a superdrive. Apple makes the only real "value" in the line the $2500 model. They also NEVER pass on the cost savings when the parts that make up the Powermac drop. Are we really to believe that the $100 (remember the line use to have a DVD and be $1599) is still necessary a year later?
Why does a "pro" machine still ship with no level 3 cache (a cited difference between the iMac and PowerMac) 128 megs of sdram, and STILL only a 5400 rpm drive.
Here is what Dell would be willing to ship me today to use with my 19 inch monitor.
1.6 ghz P4
256 megs of sdram
dell keyboard and MS Intellimouse
40 gig U/ATA 100 7200 rpm drive
24x/10x/40x cd-rw drive
32 meg ati rage ultra (easily replaced)
harmon kardon speakers (additional cost with Mac)
56k modem
10/100 ethernet
The price... $789 with free shipping.
The Apple solution with 256 megs of ram and speakers is $1808 dollars.
That is over a thousand dollar difference.
Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.
People like myself are upset because we have to justify $1800 to ourselves when similar machines from Dell and others are more than $1000 cheaper.
The specs of this $999 machine are really not significant. G3 vs G4, Superdrive or cd-r, etc... the point is really that Apple will not sell you machine that you can plug a machine that you can just plug a monitor into. Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.
Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business. Thus we would probably pay $999 for such a machine with slightly lower specs (Apple would likely only give us 128 megs of ram for example and probably a slower cd burner) We literally wouldn't mind paying a little more for a little less spec wise because we care about integration and again would pay more for it, but Apple simply won't offer it.
Nick
1. Apple's desktops machines cost more for the same "specs". Get over it. So stop this "If I go to Dell's site..." garbage. Dells costs less because they are lesser machines. If you disagree, buy one. And don't complain when XP won't even recognize your keyboard. (this happened to a coworker today, had to go back to Win98 - you get what you pay for)
2. Before the iMacs, Apple was selling Performas with lesser video capabilities too. Many of those models didn't accept video cards to drive 19" monitors either. You had to go for the more expensive pro line to get slots to accept bigger video cards. That's the way Apple makes money. If you don't like it, then take your business elsewhere. Apple is making money, so obviously not everyone agrees with you.
3. Apple is making money. They are doing things right. I've seen so many armchair CEOs recommend ridiculous things like sell a $999 Cube (the thing costs more than $999 to market, produce, and sell, no matter what processor you stick in there) that common sense would dictate Apple lose money off of every sale.
4. Anyone who disagrees with you is NOT an Apple apologist, under Steve's RDF, or other such nonsense. I don't think Apple produces perfect products either, but I realize that Apple continues to improve them, and they can't have the perfect lineup 365 days a year. It takes time.
Whew! My rant's done. Now I will wait for the new towers to arrive. I'm sure I will like them.
<strong> Steve Jobs has to either release top of the line products with all the trimmings or he needs to step down. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):
iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto
Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.
That is a quote I believe., and it sounds somewhat promising for march, and April maybe.
mobile versions of Athlon4 and P4(i'm not too sure on this one)
DDR SDRam
Geforce3 ti 500
NForce with hypertransport & integrated audio
raid on motherboard
ata133
160GB Hard Drive
$399 15" lcd
"SuperDrives" DVD-RW or DVD+RW
Geforce2Go
ATi Radeon mobility
btw i'm a huge mac fan, and i believe that even despite the current specs of the offered machines they are faster than anything on the pc side, not benchmark wise, productivity wise, it definitely more than evens it out. But... pc makers constantly release new motherboards and newer processors, and newer technology on a REGULAR basis. the pc market is constantly in a state of change, the mac platform seems as though it is stuck in quicksand.
I say FVCK the MacWorld Expo's release new hardware when you can. Don't sit on the sh it. If you have a newer faster processor release it when its ready. Maybe people wont be so dissapointed when an expo comes around and they get year old technology.
I will forever buy the mac platform until Apple goes bellyup, which i hope isnt soon. But i will also buy PC hardware just so i can stay somewhat out of the quicksand.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: bradbower ]</p>
<strong>
I really, really, find this ridiculous. Just in the last twelve months, dating back to MWSF01, Apple has released the following products (partial list):
iTunes
iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
SuperDrive
[b]PowerBook G4[/b[
snow iBook
iPod
new iMac
iPhoto
Yes, one year ago none of those products even existed. Show me another computer company that has created more "top of the line products" in the last year and I'll believe you; until then, I very much disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And a nice Unix based operating system that will work way into the future.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: bradbower ][/QB][/QUOTE]
Uh, no. You see it's the other way around. I could care less about this stuff beyond using these machines as workstations. Regardless, it's very predictable when people like yourself make the argument you just made. What I don't understand is the complete devotion some out there have for a computer manufacturer (Apple) that often rips you off. It's just a computer. A thing. So explain to me why many of the Mac fan club despise Dell, or Intel and the great evil of them all Microsoft. Please. Tell it like it is. When it's going good in the Mac community grown men and women constantly attack anything from Microsoft and or Pentium's processors. So which is it, does Microsoft suck or Dell? Why do they "suck"? Because the marketing team at Apple says so? Cmon! If I am guilty of one thing it's that I am fascinated as to what point blind Mac loyalist will ever say something beyond "he posted that because he is angry" etc BS simply because some truth is being stated. Read my original post. My point was and is that Apple has gone from creating solid dependable products a few years back to hyping moderate hardware while trying to become the Sharper Image of the computer industry. This discussion is about the viewing of business practices which happens to be a very interesting one from an average outsiders perspective. That's all. At least explain how paying near 900 dollars more for a Mac tower is worth it just "because it's a Mac". That my friend is just pathetic.
<strong>
Apple sells fewer and fewer machines and charges more and more for them. In the report today Apple's profit margin is 30.1%.
....
Again if Dell can ship it for $789, why can't Apple ship something similar for a reasonable price.
....
Mac owners such as myself don't mind the Apple "premium" that keeps them in business.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds like you DO mind the premium that you pay to get an Apple instead of a Dell. Isn't that the whole point of your message?
Apple will never compete with Dell. Dell is taking pre-existing technology and packaging it using the highest possible business efficiencies, selling at razor-thin margins and surviving only because they move such massive quantities.
If Apple had a 7% gross margin, the only thing keeping them from being bankrupt within two quarters would be their huge cash reserves. They couldn't possibly increase their sales volume enough to cover their fixed costs at those margins. Apple turned a 30% gross margin and STILL just barely made a net profit for the quarter.
It simply isn't an option for Apple to try to play Dell's game. If you're comparing Dell machines to Apple machines and wondering why the price difference, there are lots of reasons for it. The biggest reason is that Apple must bear nearly ALL the hardware and software development costs for the machines they create. Dell just buys parts from third parties and bolts it together, then installs somebody else's OS and software on it.
Saying "But I could get a computer at Dell for so much less" is like walking into a nice restaurant, taking a look at the menu, and then complaining to the manager that "I could get a whole meal at McDonald's for three and a half bucks!" Granted, my analogy is flawed in that Dell is making machines that meet or beat Apple's in terms of specs. But the point is, you're comparing a company that's a pure mass-manufacturing entity, and comaring it to one that does an awful lot of other things, creates value in other ways.
<strong>
My point was and is that Apple has gone from creating solid dependable products a few years back to hyping moderate hardware while trying to become the Sharper Image of the computer industry. This discussion is about the viewing of business practices which happens to be a very interesting one from an average outsiders perspective. That's all. At least explain how paying near 900 dollars more for a Mac tower is worth it just "because it's a Mac". That my friend is just pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has NEVER been the cheapest, "lowest common denominator" computer manufacturer. There have been times when Apple was selling Powermacs with processors that were as fast as the fastest Windows processors (or faster) but if Motorola can't give them faster chips right now, what do you expect them to do about it? Sell the machines for half price?
Honestly, if you don't think it's "worth it," then don't buy it. I don't blame you for being frustrated if you think Apple used to be more competitive than it was before -- that's definitely true in terms of the processor speed of the Powermacs (at least until the next revision which COULD be soon) at the moment. You can be pretty sure that if Apple could get faster processors from Moto, they WOULD.
But it's not like Steve Jobs comes over to your house and twists your arm to buy each new Powermac revision. if you think they suck, if you think Dell's spokesdude Steven is your kinda fella, then buy a Dell and I'm sure you'll be happier. This extreme anger and talk about being "ripped off" is just bizarre.
The Cube was priced at 1799 because R&D had to be covered.
<hr></blockquote>
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, Apple bragged about the cube having the highest margin of any consumer computer on the market.
It was overpriced because of greed and stupidity, no other reasons.
<strong>
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, Apple bragged about the cube having the highest margin of any consumer computer on the market.
It was overpriced because of greed and stupidity, no other reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't say that. Obviously you must be angry and or had a bad day at work to say such a thing about the marketing of the Cube. Those defective power buttons were INTENDED to go off and on randomly for the fun of it you see.
<strong>
LOL, utter nonsense. If this is so, then why is the iMac so cheap? The iMac is basically a cube, WITH an LCD display, that costs less than the cube did.
Apple spent two years designing the iMac, far longer than it took to design the cube. They apparently can cover R&D for the iMac without trouble, no?
Listen, this is how it works...Apple spends a certain amount on R&D each year. What comes out of that R&D are the new products you see. The R&D budget is allocated each year, from the earnings made.
Thus, when a new product is released, the R&D is already paid for. It was paid at the time it was done. Apple doesn't borrow money to design a product, then pay it back with the profit from that specific product. It doesn't work that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it does work that way. Apple is borrowing money from its profits to sink into the R&D budget. In order for a product which, like the Cube, requires a significant R&D investment to be created, it must return a profit margin enough to more than cover the cost of the R&D. Otherwise you go broke designing terrific products.
Why is the iMac so cheap? Because, as you pointed out, it's a Cube with a monitor. There were greatly reduced R&D costs, because many engineering problems were already previously solved.
<strong>So explain to me why many of the Mac fan club despise Dell, or Intel and the great evil of them all Microsoft. Please. Tell it like it is. So which is it, does Microsoft suck or Dell? Why do they "suck"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They suck because of their utter and abject disregard, bordering on self-abnegating apathy, for any consideration of humanity, aesthetics, or the idea of art, in the design and production of their products.
They suck because they appeal to the antithesis of the creative process - the mere participation in the manufacturing of objects and ideas.
They suck because they represent a vision of computing utterly devoid of the human soul.
I am not a graphic artist, a video producer, or even a writer. I do no page layout. I have no idea what Photoshop filters are. iMovie exists upon my machine merely because I have not gotten around to deleting it. I am not a photographer.
I spent two years as a Windows software developer. Every night, after contemplating a day spent negotiating with and condescending to acknowledge a world of grey interface elements on a grey background, sterile system text, unambitiously adequate user interface, and machinery devoted to Purpose rather than to Creation, I thanked a merciful God that some alternative existed.
That is why I am a Macintosh user. And yes, I am willing to part with some mere sum of money to be one.
The Good:
1)OSX is very nice. Everything looks sharp and so far has not crashed on me once. That is impressive.
2)iTunes, iMovie and 10.1. iMovie is especially nice because of it's easy interface and semi-professional results. These types of Programs are Apple's strong suits.
3)Radeon and Gforce cards. Bringing the Macs up to date finally.
4)Titanium Powerbooks; best Apple product out there. It needs no false hype either. Beautifully designed.
The Bad:
1)Two somewhat flat Macworlds (with the exception of the consumer who may love the new i-Mac)
2)Blue Dalmation and Flower Power iMacs. Reaching the bottom of the barrel for any computer company
especially Apple.
3)Handling of the Cube. Overpriced was bad enough but the faulty switches and "cracks" should never have happened.
4)Powermacs. Overpriced and (very)underpowered. Don't know who's fault it was/is but it can't continue if Apple is to survive. Hopefully this can be fixed in the next week or two.
I think I have been fair. Maybe some of you can offer a similar list.