Apple won't make a small tower that numerous people here and elsewhere want.
Because those "numerous" people are less than one percent of the market.
They gave up on the 17" Mac Book that numerous people want.
Same reason.
The Mac Pro refresh cycle is driving people nuts.
Blame Intel.
Apple is paring its line to fewer items so that its transition to all tablets and phones won't be so abrupt.
Nonsense.
All of those things diminish Apple's reputation.
Among the 1% of people who demand their minuscule niche be met. No one else, though.
The Apple TV might be the last thing innovative that they create, and it was thought up by Steve Jobs.
Ludicrous nonsense.
Google Glass, once working, will be the next great revolution in personal computing.
*snort*
The next great revolution in a personal electronic device will be home 3D printing. I'm a touch worried about the ability to make weapons with one, but everything else they can do outweigh that.
Google Glass is a gimmick that self-respecting people won't wear and won't want to be spoken to while someone else is wearing. Augmented reality absolutely has its place in the future, but not as a worn device.
Google Glass, once working, will be the next great revolution in personal computing. It's not for work but it has amazing potential to do things that a phone can't accomplish.
The Apple is a religion meme is still alive and kicking...
Google glass will fail. It's an invasion of privacy on so many levels.
Google Glass is a gimmick that self-respecting people won't wear and won't want to be spoken to while someone else is wearing. Augmented reality absolutely has its place in the future, but not as a worn device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Google glass will fail. It's an invasion of privacy on so many levels.
Yer nuts. If they become commercially viable, as in you can actually do something useful with them and can buy them at a reasonable price, I'll grab 'em up in a heartbeat. Heads-up display? Yes, please!
It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I'd like something like GG to mirror the display of a computer. I can imagine situations in my work in which it would be helpful to have real-time data updating on the heads-up while I'm performing other tasks. Or maybe it would just obscure my view of other, more important things, like where I'm going. It would be interesting to try, though.
Then we can urge auto manufacturers to put a Bluetooth transmitter in the instrument panel so I can see the tach and speedo without taking my eyes off that rapidly approaching turn!
C'mon, ya gotta give him that one. Intel was not the reason for Apple doing nothing except one CPU update over a third of a decade. We may be waiting for Haswell now, but that doesn't account for the three-plus years of dust on the Big Mac.
Among the 1% of people who demand their minuscule niche be met. No one else, though.
I get that, BUT...
It's a niche Apple created. For years we were told that Apple is the machine for creative pros. Apple crafted and fostered an image as the definitive platform for content creators. So we bought in. We invested time in becoming proficient on Apple's platform instead of Windows. We bought Apple's hardware, and plenty of it. We bought shelves full of Mac software. We built systems, both tangible and procedural, around Apple's products.
So to now be told that we don't represent a big enough slice of pie to matter is a piss off. It feels like having invested heavily in producing HD-DVD and watching the market adopt Blu-Ray. "Yeah, we know, we said we're the platform for pros but we changed our minds."
I'm not saying Apple owes us anything or that they're doing anything wrong, but I'm sure you can understand why some people feel abandoned. That may be true and might even be the right thing for Apple to do, but it's still as big a change of direction as, say, Honda leaving F1 racing. Those who backed that part of the business, and built their OWN business on that model, are gonna be pissed.
C'mon, ya gotta give him that one. Intel was not the reason for Apple doing nothing except one CPU update over a third of a decade. We may be waiting for Haswell now, but that doesn't account for the three-plus years of dust on the Big Mac.
No, I don't. Apple doesn't do updates without CPU changes, and if there is no CPU to change…
If people want to be upset at Apple for not doing updates without CPU changes, that's another issue, but Apple's reasons for that are longstanding.
Originally Posted by GTR
Amen to that, brother.
I think the easiest way to put a stop to that is to require a valid gun license AND to have a REGISTERED firearm on file before ALL ammunition purchases. You don't need ammo without a gun, and if there's not one on file, the only reason you'd be buying it is to arm an illegal weapon, either purchased or printed.
These things can print the guns, sure, but they can't print the bullets.
Originally Posted by v5v
It's a niche Apple created.
I'm unsure what you mean. You're saying that Apple was the name in workstation computers (and computers for the media industry), but how does that translate to Apple creating the niche for a "headless iMac" when they have never made any computer like that?
So to now be told that we don't represent a big enough slice of pie to matter is a piss off. It feels like having invested heavily in producing HD-DVD and watching the market adopt Blu-Ray. "Yeah, we know, we said we're the platform for pros but we changed our minds."
I'm certain the change (whatever it is) to the Mac Pro coming this year will answer most, if not all, of the questions and concerns people have in this regard, one way or the other. But the xMac has always been a separate issue.
When have they ever really? In computing, although occasionally putting out some of the best personal computers in the world, they've remained something of an underdog PC maker throughout their history.
Steve Jobs was good at predicting the future of computing and electronic devices but he wasn't the only one out there creating the future. Other companies have vision too. The Apple TV might be the last thing innovative that they create, and it was thought up by Steve Jobs.
Yes, Apple is doomed.
Google Glass, once working, will be the next great revolution in personal computing. It's not for work but it has amazing potential to do things that a phone can't accomplish.
The "next great revolution in personal computing"? I really REALLY don't think so.
I say this because I've been embracing those "next great things" as they've come along for some decades now. I also like to think I know them when I see them. So far, I'm doing pretty well with my 'predictions'.
Glass has some 'cool' to it, and definite niche potential, but it isn't the next great "universal" leap forward you seem to think it is.
No, I imagine something very different from Glass will be the next big thing. I also suspect we can expect plenty of wonderful new inventions from Apple.
For now, I see incremental, deeper integration across devices, a kind of 'ecosystem consolidation' across spaces and interfaces (led by multi-touch, voice command, wireless sync across all), cloud-based data, mobile… I'm pretty confident Apple is planning a major push into this with iOS/OSX and iCloud.
We certainly do think differently where Apple is concerned.
No, I don't. Apple doesn't do updates without CPU changes, and if there is no CPU to change…
That is fine for Intels parting this screw up but that doesn't explain the lack of GPU update or other issues with the platform like TB support.
If people want to be upset at Apple for not doing updates without CPU changes, that's another issue, but Apple's reasons for that are longstanding.
Which is one reason to push for an XMac class machine or an entry level Pro using desktop parts. You immediately get around Intels long drawn out XEON update cycles.
I think the easiest way to put a stop to that is to require a valid gun license AND to have a REGISTERED firearm on file before ALL ammunition purchases.
Registration is something that must be avoided at all cost. History is pretty clear on this, give up your freedom to defend yourself and you will enter into decades or centuries of oppression. Beyond that people have been making guns for decades, in most locations it isn't illegal at all.
You don't need ammo without a gun,
That is like saying you don't need gasoline or oil without a car.
and if there's not one on file, the only reason you'd be buying it is to arm an illegal weapon, either purchased or printed.
Your ignorance often amazes me here, but you have really gone off the deep end now.
These things can print the guns, sure, but they can't print the bullets.
At best the only thing that has been printed to date are toys and not serious guns.
I'm unsure what you mean. You're saying that Apple was the name in workstation computers (and computers for the media industry), but how does that translate to Apple creating the niche for a "headless iMac" when they have never made any computer like that?
In the past Apple has made many computers that could pass as an xMac. They may not have marketed them correctly but that doesn't mean the machines didn't have some of the qualities of an XMac. What is more important now is that Apple has an OS that could really perform well on such a Mac, an OS that is well accepted in the industry.
I'm certain the change (whatever it is) to the Mac Pro coming this year will answer most, if not all, of the questions and concerns people have in this regard, one way or the other. But the xMac has always been a separate issue.
It isn't a separate issue at all, the whole idea with XMac is to have enough volume to carry the Mac Pro. To put it simply a high performance Mac Pro will never have the volume to justify its existence alone. If you want the Mac Pro to survive you need a machine that can generate volume in the entry level machine. Just getting sales into the low six digits would do wonders for the platforms longevity.
The reason they stick around for so long is because of Windows. Who really wants to go back to Windows? Nobody. So those who don't want to fiddle with a Linux distribution must continue with the Mac platform. The Mac is winning only because HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Samsung, and the rest keep using Windows as their OS.
If Apple ever offers its OS for sale to the general public the way Microsoft does, there will be many people who abandon the Apple hardware for their own custom made boxes or one from another company.
Apple is basking in their "It Just Works" reputation, which is true. They have abandoned being a leading edge company for being a profit first company. They're becoming Sears. They have high quality products that are priced higher than the competition but they aren't leading the pack. They go with what they know and with what works.
Often they buy tech companies that are leading their fields and incorporate those features into Apple products. How much of Lightpeak/Thunderbolt did Apple really invent? Maybe Intel did all of the work and Apple just agreed to be the first to incorporate it. Apple was first with Retina displays but screen makers were already creating 4K technology. Perhaps Apple just grabbed it first. Maybe they didn't really create it at all. They didn't create Siri. They bought it. Where is the real Apple innovation? I think Apple peaked in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone. From then onward the computer segment of the company was secondary and probably will be until they don't want to make them at all.
Windows still has greater dominance in the world over Mac OS X... I actually prefer Windows 7 to Windows 8, and Mac OS X. I still get better hardware at cheaper prices, and even making a Hackintosh is getting simpler to do by the day so I have that option as well. And not the mention the growing Linux database for home users besides the fact that most servers and workstations run LINUX. Android is Linux as well. Unix, the core of Mac OS X is built on FreeBSD. Which is Linux. You might not really know your facts dude, but I'm pretty sure Macs only sell because people are too lazy to figure out how things work. I have never heard or seen anyone trying to overclock a Mac, nor a Gamer say that their iMac is better than a custom PC. And Apple is just a great recipe company with enough money to buy their ingredients from who's ever making them. If people were smart enough to know how to build their own PC's and run Mac OS X on them with Windows on Bootcamp the sole winner would be the one who learned to make the machine work. Not Apple or Microsoft.
Registration is something that must be avoided at all cost. History is pretty clear on this, give up your freedom to defend yourself and you will enter into decades or centuries of oppression.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about that? If you have a possession whose function, primary or accidental, is to hurt or kill someone, it should be known.
We know the countries with nukes. We have to register our vehicles. A record should exist of how well armed a person is.
Note that I'm not saying anything about restriction on even the TYPE of weapon able to be owned, much less the number, just that if a weapon is owned, it needs to be known by someone other than the owner. Not the public, by any means, just not no one.
That is like saying you don't need gasoline or oil without a car.
I guess you can throw the bullets at people. Put 'em in a slingshot or something. Just like you could drink gasoline and expect to go faster or whatever.
Your ignorance often amazes me here, but you have really gone off the deep end now.
So your uses for having bullets without owning any guns are… what? Modern art?
At best the only thing that has been printed to date are toys and not serious guns.
The plastic one that fires real bullets and doesn't set off metal detectors, you mean?
In the past Apple has made many computers that could pass as an xMac. They may not have marketed them correctly but that doesn't mean the machines didn't have some of the qualities of an XMac. What is more important now is that Apple has an OS that could really perform well on such a Mac, an OS that is well accepted in the industry.
Are we all again forgetting that the reason Apple doesn't make an xMac could very well be that they just couldn't care less about making one? For reasons of lineup, logistics, or profit?
It isn't a separate issue at all, the whole idea with XMac is to have enough volume to carry the Mac Pro. To put it simply a high performance Mac Pro will never have the volume to justify its existence alone. If you want the Mac Pro to survive you need a machine that can generate volume in the entry level machine. Just getting sales into the low six digits would do wonders for the platforms longevity.
So basically, "Apple couldn't only sell the Mac Pro," which is obvious. Thing is, they don't. They sell the Mac Mini and iMac, too. And some nice laptops, tablets, phones, and PMPs.
I'm unsure what you mean. You're saying that Apple was the name in workstation computers (and computers for the media industry), but how does that translate to Apple creating the niche for a "headless iMac" when they have never made any computer like that?
I was responding specifically to the discussion about ignoring the tower and dropping the 17" 'book. The machines directed at and widely adopted by content creators are not a priority for Apple anymore. It's not my intention to address what Apple "should" do, but rather just understanding how a particular segment of users might react to what they HAVE done.
ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY SINGLE GUY SOMEWHERE! HE WHOSE SOLE OPINION DIMINISHES THE REPUTATION OF THE WEALTHIEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD!
Actually I have posted before that Apple used to have all four members of my family, myself, wife and two daughters as Mac users. They all have iDevices but all three have left Apple for computing needs and have switched to Windows.
I'm the only Mac user left in the house.
So sure Apple is wealthy. But Apple is losing sales to some previous Mac users. The question is why.
I'd like to hear your explanation. I could be just like the rest of the family and switch. But instead I'm here fighting FOR Apple instead of walking away.
Obviously you don't care. I'm trying to figure out if Apple cares why it has lost previous customers.
Actually I have posted before that Apple used to have all four members of my family, myself, wife and two daughters as Mac users. They all have iDevices but all three have left Apple for computing needs and have switched to Windows.
I'm the only Mac user left in the house.
So sure Apple is wealthy. But Apple is losing sales to some previous Mac users. The question is why.
I'd like to hear your explanation. I could be just like the rest of the family and switch. But instead I'm here fighting FOR Apple instead of walking away.
Obviously you don't care. I'm trying to figure out if Apple cares why it has lost previous customers.
There has never been a retention rate if 100%. Worrying about the 5% that defected < winning over the 5% that switched.
Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.
This.
Is there hope for X-Mac buyers.
Kinda. After ten years plus...(and they're STILL waiting?) a refactored pro (if it comes) and a Haswell mini are the closest people are going to get to an X-Mac. Like Tal' says. It's something Apple has no intention of making. They 'kinda' tried it in the past and yanked the idea. The iMac gives better overall value and Apple sells a premium computer with display mark up into the deal.
Back when there was the old candy iMac from £500-£1200
...and the G3 from £1200-£2k plus...things were simpler for the desktop.
But the iMac 'grew' up and ate lots of 'low to middle' end pro' sales. The iMac is Apple's desktop philosophy. It's good value for money too. (Relative to other Apple desktops...)
There was a time when it was unthinkable that 'Tower' sales would ever be under 100k. But Apple stopped calling out sales numbers by line probably for a reason. Just how many 2k (for a crap entry spec tower) are you going to sell?
If they just upped the price of the entry iMac by £100 and are appeasing shareholders with pay outs...then what makes us think they'd make an X-Mac and charge less than they did for the Cube? or make the new 'pro' cheaper than 2k? From G3, to G4, to G5 to Gintel they have upped and upped the price. When has it become cheaper?
If I had my 'wish...' (and it takes nothing away from the iMac in my view...)
Part of me thinks they could simplify the desktop range into a mini Pro tower that can be specced with 'Mini' specs, 'iMac' specs and 'pro' specs. ...and one model below a grand, one above a grand and one for about 2 grand. I think they'd reach more sales than 'just' mini and pro sales. But how many will that be? Top out at? It doesn't sound like it would be enough or why hasn't Apple done it already?
Oh. They have. Kinda. They had a G3 that had 'power and value' (remember Jobs taking the Key Note...). They tried the Cube. Pricey. They had a G5 for £995 (but with crap specs...) That's Apple. They don't do 'cheap' prices.
I think all their desktops are overpriced by a couple of hundred. But it doesn't matter. Apple is Apple and will charge what they like.
The iMac is Apple's prosumer desktop. Just like Final Cut is Prosumer. Apple is the consumer/prosumer company. Consolidate. I'm surprised they haven't taken the desktop line to just two products. Or killed the pro and left the iMac with the mini as the 'cheap' option.
I can see a day when you'll have to take an iMac or 'lump' it with the 'pro' or 'mini' canned.
Everything Apple does is AIO. Laptops. iMacs. iPhones. iPods. iPads. They're all AIO designs with screens. Millions upon millions vs a piddling number of sales for non AIO designs.
1 million iMac sales is respectable. Do 'workstations' across all PC vendors sell that many?
What is the iMac but an uber powerful iPad on a stand that you can't 'touch' (yet...). A sealed unit running Mac Os X.
Comments
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Apple won't make a small tower that numerous people here and elsewhere want.
Because those "numerous" people are less than one percent of the market.
They gave up on the 17" Mac Book that numerous people want.
Same reason.
The Mac Pro refresh cycle is driving people nuts.
Blame Intel.
Apple is paring its line to fewer items so that its transition to all tablets and phones won't be so abrupt.
Nonsense.
All of those things diminish Apple's reputation.
Among the 1% of people who demand their minuscule niche be met. No one else, though.
The Apple TV might be the last thing innovative that they create, and it was thought up by Steve Jobs.
Ludicrous nonsense.
Google Glass, once working, will be the next great revolution in personal computing.
*snort*
The next great revolution in a personal electronic device will be home 3D printing. I'm a touch worried about the ability to make weapons with one, but everything else they can do outweigh that.
Google Glass is a gimmick that self-respecting people won't wear and won't want to be spoken to while someone else is wearing. Augmented reality absolutely has its place in the future, but not as a worn device.
The Apple is a religion meme is still alive and kicking...
Google glass will fail. It's an invasion of privacy on so many levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Google Glass is a gimmick that self-respecting people won't wear and won't want to be spoken to while someone else is wearing. Augmented reality absolutely has its place in the future, but not as a worn device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Google glass will fail. It's an invasion of privacy on so many levels.
Yer nuts. If they become commercially viable, as in you can actually do something useful with them and can buy them at a reasonable price, I'll grab 'em up in a heartbeat. Heads-up display? Yes, please!
It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I'd like something like GG to mirror the display of a computer. I can imagine situations in my work in which it would be helpful to have real-time data updating on the heads-up while I'm performing other tasks. Or maybe it would just obscure my view of other, more important things, like where I'm going. It would be interesting to try, though.
Then we can urge auto manufacturers to put a Bluetooth transmitter in the instrument panel so I can see the tach and speedo without taking my eyes off that rapidly approaching turn!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
The Mac Pro refresh cycle is driving people nuts.
Blame Intel.
C'mon, ya gotta give him that one. Intel was not the reason for Apple doing nothing except one CPU update over a third of a decade. We may be waiting for Haswell now, but that doesn't account for the three-plus years of dust on the Big Mac.
Amen to that, brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Among the 1% of people who demand their minuscule niche be met. No one else, though.
I get that, BUT...
It's a niche Apple created. For years we were told that Apple is the machine for creative pros. Apple crafted and fostered an image as the definitive platform for content creators. So we bought in. We invested time in becoming proficient on Apple's platform instead of Windows. We bought Apple's hardware, and plenty of it. We bought shelves full of Mac software. We built systems, both tangible and procedural, around Apple's products.
So to now be told that we don't represent a big enough slice of pie to matter is a piss off. It feels like having invested heavily in producing HD-DVD and watching the market adopt Blu-Ray. "Yeah, we know, we said we're the platform for pros but we changed our minds."
I'm not saying Apple owes us anything or that they're doing anything wrong, but I'm sure you can understand why some people feel abandoned. That may be true and might even be the right thing for Apple to do, but it's still as big a change of direction as, say, Honda leaving F1 racing. Those who backed that part of the business, and built their OWN business on that model, are gonna be pissed.
Originally Posted by v5v
C'mon, ya gotta give him that one. Intel was not the reason for Apple doing nothing except one CPU update over a third of a decade. We may be waiting for Haswell now, but that doesn't account for the three-plus years of dust on the Big Mac.
No, I don't. Apple doesn't do updates without CPU changes, and if there is no CPU to change…
If people want to be upset at Apple for not doing updates without CPU changes, that's another issue, but Apple's reasons for that are longstanding.
Originally Posted by GTR
Amen to that, brother.
I think the easiest way to put a stop to that is to require a valid gun license AND to have a REGISTERED firearm on file before ALL ammunition purchases. You don't need ammo without a gun, and if there's not one on file, the only reason you'd be buying it is to arm an illegal weapon, either purchased or printed.
These things can print the guns, sure, but they can't print the bullets.
Originally Posted by v5v
It's a niche Apple created.
I'm unsure what you mean. You're saying that Apple was the name in workstation computers (and computers for the media industry), but how does that translate to Apple creating the niche for a "headless iMac" when they have never made any computer like that?
So to now be told that we don't represent a big enough slice of pie to matter is a piss off. It feels like having invested heavily in producing HD-DVD and watching the market adopt Blu-Ray. "Yeah, we know, we said we're the platform for pros but we changed our minds."
I'm certain the change (whatever it is) to the Mac Pro coming this year will answer most, if not all, of the questions and concerns people have in this regard, one way or the other. But the xMac has always been a separate issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Apple doesn't always lead the pack in computing.
When have they ever really? In computing, although occasionally putting out some of the best personal computers in the world, they've remained something of an underdog PC maker throughout their history.
Steve Jobs was good at predicting the future of computing and electronic devices but he wasn't the only one out there creating the future. Other companies have vision too. The Apple TV might be the last thing innovative that they create, and it was thought up by Steve Jobs.
Yes, Apple is doomed.
Google Glass, once working, will be the next great revolution in personal computing. It's not for work but it has amazing potential to do things that a phone can't accomplish.
The "next great revolution in personal computing"? I really REALLY don't think so.
I say this because I've been embracing those "next great things" as they've come along for some decades now. I also like to think I know them when I see them. So far, I'm doing pretty well with my 'predictions'.
Glass has some 'cool' to it, and definite niche potential, but it isn't the next great "universal" leap forward you seem to think it is.
No, I imagine something very different from Glass will be the next big thing. I also suspect we can expect plenty of wonderful new inventions from Apple.
For now, I see incremental, deeper integration across devices, a kind of 'ecosystem consolidation' across spaces and interfaces (led by multi-touch, voice command, wireless sync across all), cloud-based data, mobile… I'm pretty confident Apple is planning a major push into this with iOS/OSX and iCloud.
We certainly do think differently where Apple is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
The reason they stick around for so long is because of Windows. Who really wants to go back to Windows? Nobody. So those who don't want to fiddle with a Linux distribution must continue with the Mac platform. The Mac is winning only because HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Samsung, and the rest keep using Windows as their OS.
If Apple ever offers its OS for sale to the general public the way Microsoft does, there will be many people who abandon the Apple hardware for their own custom made boxes or one from another company.
Apple is basking in their "It Just Works" reputation, which is true. They have abandoned being a leading edge company for being a profit first company. They're becoming Sears. They have high quality products that are priced higher than the competition but they aren't leading the pack. They go with what they know and with what works.
Often they buy tech companies that are leading their fields and incorporate those features into Apple products. How much of Lightpeak/Thunderbolt did Apple really invent? Maybe Intel did all of the work and Apple just agreed to be the first to incorporate it. Apple was first with Retina displays but screen makers were already creating 4K technology. Perhaps Apple just grabbed it first. Maybe they didn't really create it at all. They didn't create Siri. They bought it. Where is the real Apple innovation? I think Apple peaked in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone. From then onward the computer segment of the company was secondary and probably will be until they don't want to make them at all.
Windows still has greater dominance in the world over Mac OS X... I actually prefer Windows 7 to Windows 8, and Mac OS X. I still get better hardware at cheaper prices, and even making a Hackintosh is getting simpler to do by the day so I have that option as well. And not the mention the growing Linux database for home users besides the fact that most servers and workstations run LINUX. Android is Linux as well. Unix, the core of Mac OS X is built on FreeBSD. Which is Linux. You might not really know your facts dude, but I'm pretty sure Macs only sell because people are too lazy to figure out how things work. I have never heard or seen anyone trying to overclock a Mac, nor a Gamer say that their iMac is better than a custom PC. And Apple is just a great recipe company with enough money to buy their ingredients from who's ever making them. If people were smart enough to know how to build their own PC's and run Mac OS X on them with Windows on Bootcamp the sole winner would be the one who learned to make the machine work. Not Apple or Microsoft.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Registration is something that must be avoided at all cost. History is pretty clear on this, give up your freedom to defend yourself and you will enter into decades or centuries of oppression.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about that? If you have a possession whose function, primary or accidental, is to hurt or kill someone, it should be known.
We know the countries with nukes. We have to register our vehicles. A record should exist of how well armed a person is.
Note that I'm not saying anything about restriction on even the TYPE of weapon able to be owned, much less the number, just that if a weapon is owned, it needs to be known by someone other than the owner. Not the public, by any means, just not no one.
That is like saying you don't need gasoline or oil without a car.
I guess you can throw the bullets at people. Put 'em in a slingshot or something. Just like you could drink gasoline and expect to go faster or whatever.
Your ignorance often amazes me here, but you have really gone off the deep end now.
So your uses for having bullets without owning any guns are… what? Modern art?
At best the only thing that has been printed to date are toys and not serious guns.
The plastic one that fires real bullets and doesn't set off metal detectors, you mean?
In the past Apple has made many computers that could pass as an xMac. They may not have marketed them correctly but that doesn't mean the machines didn't have some of the qualities of an XMac. What is more important now is that Apple has an OS that could really perform well on such a Mac, an OS that is well accepted in the industry.
Are we all again forgetting that the reason Apple doesn't make an xMac could very well be that they just couldn't care less about making one? For reasons of lineup, logistics, or profit?
It isn't a separate issue at all, the whole idea with XMac is to have enough volume to carry the Mac Pro. To put it simply a high performance Mac Pro will never have the volume to justify its existence alone. If you want the Mac Pro to survive you need a machine that can generate volume in the entry level machine. Just getting sales into the low six digits would do wonders for the platforms longevity.
So basically, "Apple couldn't only sell the Mac Pro," which is obvious. Thing is, they don't. They sell the Mac Mini and iMac, too. And some nice laptops, tablets, phones, and PMPs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm unsure what you mean. You're saying that Apple was the name in workstation computers (and computers for the media industry), but how does that translate to Apple creating the niche for a "headless iMac" when they have never made any computer like that?
I was responding specifically to the discussion about ignoring the tower and dropping the 17" 'book. The machines directed at and widely adopted by content creators are not a priority for Apple anymore. It's not my intention to address what Apple "should" do, but rather just understanding how a particular segment of users might react to what they HAVE done.
Samsung will dominate Apple eventually and I am glad.
Without Apple, how will they create?
And there are more cockroaches than humans so what's your point?
Originally Posted by marvfox
Samsung will dominate Apple eventually and I am glad.
Your comment is idiotic, and so is your emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY SINGLE GUY SOMEWHERE! HE WHOSE SOLE OPINION DIMINISHES THE REPUTATION OF THE WEALTHIEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD!
Actually I have posted before that Apple used to have all four members of my family, myself, wife and two daughters as Mac users. They all have iDevices but all three have left Apple for computing needs and have switched to Windows.
I'm the only Mac user left in the house.
So sure Apple is wealthy. But Apple is losing sales to some previous Mac users. The question is why.
I'd like to hear your explanation. I could be just like the rest of the family and switch. But instead I'm here fighting FOR Apple instead of walking away.
Obviously you don't care. I'm trying to figure out if Apple cares why it has lost previous customers.
Originally Posted by MacTac
But Apple is losing sales to some previous Mac users. The question is why.
Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.
Obviously you don't care.
No, obviously Apple doesn't care.
There has never been a retention rate if 100%. Worrying about the 5% that defected < winning over the 5% that switched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.
This.
Is there hope for X-Mac buyers.
Kinda. After ten years plus...(and they're STILL waiting?) a refactored pro (if it comes) and a Haswell mini are the closest people are going to get to an X-Mac. Like Tal' says. It's something Apple has no intention of making. They 'kinda' tried it in the past and yanked the idea. The iMac gives better overall value and Apple sells a premium computer with display mark up into the deal.
Back when there was the old candy iMac from £500-£1200
...and the G3 from £1200-£2k plus...things were simpler for the desktop.
But the iMac 'grew' up and ate lots of 'low to middle' end pro' sales. The iMac is Apple's desktop philosophy. It's good value for money too. (Relative to other Apple desktops...)
There was a time when it was unthinkable that 'Tower' sales would ever be under 100k. But Apple stopped calling out sales numbers by line probably for a reason. Just how many 2k (for a crap entry spec tower) are you going to sell?
If they just upped the price of the entry iMac by £100 and are appeasing shareholders with pay outs...then what makes us think they'd make an X-Mac and charge less than they did for the Cube? or make the new 'pro' cheaper than 2k? From G3, to G4, to G5 to Gintel they have upped and upped the price. When has it become cheaper?
If I had my 'wish...' (and it takes nothing away from the iMac in my view...)
Part of me thinks they could simplify the desktop range into a mini Pro tower that can be specced with 'Mini' specs, 'iMac' specs and 'pro' specs. ...and one model below a grand, one above a grand and one for about 2 grand. I think they'd reach more sales than 'just' mini and pro sales. But how many will that be? Top out at? It doesn't sound like it would be enough or why hasn't Apple done it already?
Oh. They have. Kinda. They had a G3 that had 'power and value' (remember Jobs taking the Key Note...). They tried the Cube. Pricey. They had a G5 for £995 (but with crap specs...) That's Apple. They don't do 'cheap' prices.
I think all their desktops are overpriced by a couple of hundred. But it doesn't matter. Apple is Apple and will charge what they like.
The iMac is Apple's prosumer desktop. Just like Final Cut is Prosumer. Apple is the consumer/prosumer company. Consolidate. I'm surprised they haven't taken the desktop line to just two products. Or killed the pro and left the iMac with the mini as the 'cheap' option.
I can see a day when you'll have to take an iMac or 'lump' it with the 'pro' or 'mini' canned.
Everything Apple does is AIO. Laptops. iMacs. iPhones. iPods. iPads. They're all AIO designs with screens. Millions upon millions vs a piddling number of sales for non AIO designs.
1 million iMac sales is respectable. Do 'workstations' across all PC vendors sell that many?
What is the iMac but an uber powerful iPad on a stand that you can't 'touch' (yet...). A sealed unit running Mac Os X.
There are worse fates. eg Windows...
Lemon Bon Bon.