From what I understand Micro$oft was selling its game console at below cost. That kind of practice is unsustainable in the long term. . . .
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that it is common practice to sell Consoles near or below cost in the Video Game industry. They make thier money on the games, not the consoles. Also R&D cost for Consoles is spread out over an aproximate 4 year life cycle of the console and console OS, which quite a bit longer in the computer industry.
2001 is a poor year for comparisons. It was the first time ever that a generation of home console systems was superior gaming technology than the home computer systems. Those systems will still be around in 3-4 years, but the computers by then will be twice as fast.
My point is just that the 2001 numbers are just as likely to be a spike as they are to show a trend.
I haven't played a computer game in well over six months, but I'm not blind to the market. Even if it's a niche market (and I think someone would have a hard time describing it as a niche) it's a profitable niche market. It's true that the gamer's upgrade cycle, at least for parts, is extraordinarily fast. Apple would be wise to better tap into this market.
iMacs are fine, it's actually what I own even though I indulge in a lot of different software. But it's not good for games. If it were, Apple would be selling more of them.
The Geforce 4mx is alot more powerful than the 2mx it replaces. However, I'd still like to see options for even more powerful graphics cards on the iMac. (I'd love to be able to buy a Geforce 4 titanium version with a G5!!! I'll be waiting a while for that version methinks...)
Fact is, games are as big if not bigger than the movie industry in sales.
Apple would be foolish to ignore a piece of that action. If they're going after the much smaller portable music player market worth $1 billion? Why not make a conscious effort to go after one worth billions upon billions more.
In terms of evolution? It appears Apple are making some efforts. Open Gl has come in the last few years. Designer kit. OS 'X' being a great platform to develop for. There's now Maya 4.5 allowing games companies to do good development work on a Mac if they choose to do so. An important win that one! Direct X conversion kits to bring Mac games to market SOONER. Then you've got a good games site on the Apple website...which I only discovered recently. Certainly. Apple aren't ignoring the use of the iMac to play games on as the blurb on the latest widescreen iMac shows.
Will the LCD iMac play DOOM 3? Probably not in its native resolution But by the time DOOM 3 ships maybe the iMac will have had another graphics card boost.
Hardcore gamers machine? No. But the next clutch of 'power'Macs with an Ati 9700 or next gen' Nvidia card will certainly handle Doom 3.
I think there's never been a better time to be a Mac gamer. Games are coming over faster. They're the 'name' games.
Apple aren't as shy of the gaming market as they use to be. They mention games in their keynotes. So they're aware of how big the market is. Having the choice of Nvidia and Ati has certainly woken Ati up on the Mac. They're making better cards and Macs are getting them! Competition. A nice thing. Motorola could be next to get the treatment.
Apple used to have crap cards, no Open Gl and few 'name' games used to take ages to come over.
That's different now.
...they'd shift more inventory of the iMac IF they did use more cutting edge components! Stick in a G4 1.2-1.4 processor and a titanium graphics card options? You'd see them really shift...
Like I said...I wanna one with a G5 and ati 9700 inside....du-da-du-da!
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Will Apple be prepared to make a console and lose money on it? Apple lose money? I don't think so. They love profit. They have no concept of 'loss leaders'. At least not in terms of hardware... I don't see Apple making a console. I don't think they'd make it powerful enough. I don't think they'd market it well enough. I don't think they'd advertise it enough. I don't think their relationship with the gaming mags would be good enough. I don't think they could make it cheap enough. It won't happen.
They could repackage their Cube with a G3 600mhz and Geforce 4mx. Bare bones everything else and sell it as a £499 inc VAT gaming computer (that you could also use for work etc...) ala ye old Amiga 500.
"I haven't played a computer game in well over six months, but I'm not blind to the market. Even if it's a niche market (and I think someone would have a hard time describing it as a niche) it's a profitable niche market. It's true that the gamer's upgrade cycle, at least for parts, is extraordinarily fast. Apple would be wise to better tap into this market.
iMacs are fine, it's actually what I own even though I indulge in a lot of different software. But it's not good for games. If it were, Apple would be selling more of them. "
I believe that it is common practice to sell Consoles near or below cost in the Video Game industry. They make thier money on the games, not the consoles. Also R&D cost for Consoles is spread out over an aproximate 4 year life cycle of the console and console OS, which quite a bit longer in the computer industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you haven?t bought a console box within the first year, year and a half, of its introduction, you will not buy it after. Technology is moving that fast. I believe that the most cost effective way to keep up is to replace the graphics cards when a happy median of price to value is reached. I would not buy a top tear graphic card when it?s first released, but 6-12 months down the road, that graphic card is extremely appealing, and if it?s capable of decently running the current crop of games, I would buy. Thus, for about $150 to $200 you?ve updated your gaming system. And you?re not stuck with a dinosaur technology that is 4 years old.
If you haven?t bought a console box within the first year, year and a half, of its introduction, you will not buy it after. Technology is moving that fast. I believe that the most cost effective way to keep up is to replace the graphics cards when a happy median of price to value is reached. I would not buy a top tear graphic card when it?s first released, but 6-12 months down the road, that graphic card is extremely appealing, and if it?s capable of decently running the current crop of games, I would buy. Thus, for about $150 to $200 you?ve updated your gaming system. And you?re not stuck with a dinosaur technology that is 4 years old.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most successful PC games have a multiplayer over internet/LAN connection component. Consoles, to date, do not have this. They will in the near future, but it's debateable how successful they will be. Personally, I don't think the market is there for online consoles, but who knows?
PC Games and console games are two worlds. Console games, on the whole, are more arcadeish. There are very few real time strategy games that are successful on consoles. Neither are vehicle/combat simulation games. Primarily, this is because the controllers just aren't versatile enough.
For the most part, gamers are wedded to their platforms. You will find very few consolers who are PC gamers nor the reverse. I have two consoles, but I rarely play them, when I game, I do it on the PC.
I agree with some of the others...this is an extremely lucrative and influential market that Apple would be advised to court with faster hardware.
"IMG: What kind of work has Apple been doing on OpenGL?
CB: Apple is easily the most active computer vendor working on OpenGL. They are doing more of the heavy lifting to advance OpenGL than anyone else. They spent all year working with NVIDIA and ATI to define a unified shader extension. They basically put a stake in the ground and got both companies to work towards it. They chaired the OpenGL working group on the vertex shaders, and they've been very influential. So they're completely engaged in that."
Maybe Apple aint as stupid as they used to be, eh?
This is useful for high end workstation and games.
<strong>2001 is a poor year for comparisons. It was the first time ever that a generation of home console systems was superior gaming technology than the home computer systems. Those systems will still be around in 3-4 years, but the computers by then will be twice as fast.
My point is just that the 2001 numbers are just as likely to be a spike as they are to show a trend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
2001 was not the year where the consoles would show a spike in sales. It would be this year. If you recall, neither the XBox nor the GC were out until the END of 2001. And even then, they only had a handful of titles available.
[quote]Originally posted by Thresher:
<strong>
The most successful PC games have a multiplayer over internet/LAN connection component. Consoles, to date, do not have this. They will in the near future, but it's debateable how successful they will be. Personally, I don't think the market is there for online consoles, but who knows?
PC Games and console games are two worlds. Console games, on the whole, are more arcadeish. There are very few real time strategy games that are successful on consoles. Neither are vehicle/combat simulation games. Primarily, this is because the controllers just aren't versatile enough.
For the most part, gamers are wedded to their platforms. You will find very few consolers who are PC gamers nor the reverse. I have two consoles, but I rarely play them, when I game, I do it on the PC.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's to stop some console maker from making a keyboard like controller/mouse for these RPG's and strategy games? Even FPS are arguably better on the PC because of the keyboard. BUT the hardware is better/cheaper/more convenient on the console side. It's not much of a stretch to see the PC game market devoured by some aggressive marketing by Sony, MS or Nintendo. They've got all the pieces, just not the titles. Again, not too hard for them to do.
The bottom line is this: the PC gaming world is on the decline. No doubt, though, that it's still lucrative. But if you think that the mistake Apple is making is not catering to the gaming world, you're mistaken. Yes, they would do extremely well to have a low-cost tower, but not for the aformentioned reasons. Everything in the iMac is upgradable with the exception of the video stuff. If that's your only quibble, maybe it's time to reexamine your priorities in a computer.
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Yikes!
Torifile just Devastated you guys with that last post. Sorry but you just got stretched across the canvas with that Hook.
<strong>The bottom line is this: the PC gaming world is on the decline. No doubt, though, that it's still lucrative. But if you think that the mistake Apple is making is not catering to the gaming world, you're mistaken. Yes, they would do extremely well to have a low-cost tower, but not for the aformentioned reasons. Everything in the iMac is upgradable with the exception of the video stuff. If that's your only quibble, maybe it's time to reexamine your priorities in a computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Re-examine priorities? This is the same atitude that has given us a 5% share. Apple has ASSUMED that computer users would use the computer for whatever Apple determined was appropriate. The reality is quite different.
I'm not saying there isn't a market for the all in one device, there certainly is. But if you want high a profit margin, enthusiast computers would be a much better market to pursue.
AMD was an also-ran until the advent of the Athlon. It was the first CPU that could compete with the intel Pentiums (in the PC market). By catering to the enthusiast market, they have been able to use word of mouth to increase market share incredibly. There just isn't anything that offers the bang for the buck in the PC world like the Athlons. While AMD hasn't made much headway in the business market yet, they have made a substantial market grab in the consumer market. Eventually this will turn into market share in the business environment.
If Apple were to switch to the X86-64 platform (the upcoming 64bit CPU), there would be a ready made base of enthusiasts willing to try it. These people are very influential in the PC world, it would be good to have them on our side.
I guess since I use both platforms, I see the benefits and problems with each. PC enthusiasts see Apple fanatics as snobs with overpriced, underperforming hardware. They don't understand the benefits of the OS or good design.
Apple fanatics tend to be myopic about what is going on in the rest of the industry. Gamers and enthusiasts drive the PC industry. No one needs a P4 to run Word or Outlook. They buy all that power because of marketing and gaming performance.
Apple ignores those factors at its own peril.
Putting an Apple store in SoHo just solidifies the opinion that Macs are only good for artsy fartsy types. If Apple is serious about market share, we need to get stores in more mainstream areas, not just boutique shops in well monied areas (like Woodfield).
I am definitely not artsy fartsy, I am one of those enthusiasts you seem to feel is not worthy of Apple to pursue. I appreciate the engineering of my Powerbook, the design is marvelous, and the OS is extremely well designed. I have about $20k in computer equipment of various types in my house. I not only influence my family and friends computer buying decisions (often going as far as building PCs for them), but because of my job at the US's largest personal insurance company, I can have some influence at my company to veto what equipment we use or don't use (I don't want to overstate this, my decisions often come down to vendor, not the technology). I am also not alone. The PC world has plenty like me.
Of-course, if you're too grown up senility starts to set in. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said I don't play games, I just use a gaming machine for it (GC).
I agree in principle with the purpose of this thread and that is to have a low priced, expandable system. I just wish you didn't tie it so heavily into this perceived need for gamers to come over to the platform. It's a bad reason, especially considering the competition in the console market.
I agree in principle with the purpose of this thread and that is to have a low priced, expandable system. I just wish you didn't tie it so heavily into this perceived need for gamers to come over to the platform. It's a bad reason, especially considering the competition in the console market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To me, gamers would be an after thought to the others that would use the product, but their dollars could be significant. As good as the games market is right now, implementing this Tower would bring in more gamers. That means more users. That means a larger market share. That means more software (including games). That entices more users. That means a larger market share....
With that sort of thinking I suppose you would also exclude any kind of decent audio capabilities for your computer, because you already have a dedicated stereo for that. Whatever..
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Yep, I do exclude the audio of my computer. I don't consider the audio of any computer any better then "fair", while my stereo (which I spent much more on) is much better than decent. It also has been with me (and will continue to be) for far longer than any computer I will ever own. Stereo equipment doesn't become obsolete on a planned 2-3 year cycle. But then again, I still consider vinyl to be vastly superior to cd.
What do you all use your computer for? How many of you need to upgrade and why? I understand that the person who works on a mac needs speed for photo or video work, but what about the home users? Other than games, what would drive you to upgrade? Gamers do upgrade often, because they have to. They would bring a lot of money to the table and to dismiss them is to not look at the big picture.
Torifile, you are one hosile mo'fo' . I don't usually single posters out, but you and Capt. Obvious are exactly the type of people that kept me (and many other PC users) away from the mac. You give the impression of the old school Mac user who takes the "I'm better than you" attitude. You say that you havent upgraded in years! Thats exactly why you want gamers on a Mac! What have you done for apple lately? Hopefully bought lots of software, because Apple R&D dollars need to come from somewhere. Why not let gamers in with open arms? They will buy the hardware on a regular basis because they need to.
I want to "switch" apple! Where's the hardware I need to do so? Give me a Powermac with modern hardware and I will come! (I picture SJ hearing a voice like Costner in field of dreams "If you build it, they will come...")
Some great points were made in previous posts. The imac is a "dead end". Its a great starting point but I really don't like wasting money on a "throw away" monitor. Now if they could just make it so my old imac (that i would buy now) could act as a monitor for my the new powermac i would buy in 2004. Its just too hard to justify almost $5000 for a new powermac with 17" LCD when it's sporting technology such as SDRAM from around 2 or 3 years ago. I have spent about that much for 4 PC's and 1 17" CRT in the past 5 years. (See, gamers do upgrade often ). Lets hope those powermacs in August make it worth while for me to "switch"
That said. I think I understand how much this platform means to all of you and contrary to the "doomed" threads I see pop up once in a while I think the opposite is true. In PC forums I see a lot of "buzz". Games are important to PC users. A lot of Mac only people don't understand because all you've had for so long were scraps, a 10 year old MYST game and blizzard (a shining star) but now the trickle has turned into a flood with OS X and PC gamers are taking notice! "Buzz" is very good...and we have no love of Microsoft... I hope to be a part of the family as soon as I see hardware worthy of the money I've set aside....I can't wait!
Lastly, what is the obsession with AMD? Thats all I hear about on these boards. Why not Intel? Has Intel somehow angered the Apple gods too? Oh and great thread PC^KILLA! (Perhaps a poorly worded topic title though ).
Ok really lastly this time, the console/PC debate will be raging forever so why bother fighting it here? They are 2 completely different beasts with very little content overlap. Anyone who uses both would know that...
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Except I believe this is an enforced cycle...ie the developers insist on developing for bleeding edge hardware. In many cases, this is simply to cover up a distinct lack of imagination, creativity, and optimization. As an example, how many times can you serve up SimCity, with new, needier graphics, and continue to sell? Or the same with Doom et al?
If Apple were to switch to the X86-64 platform (the upcoming 64bit CPU), there would be a ready made base of enthusiasts willing to try it. These people are very influential in the PC world, it would be good to have them on our side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There wouldn't be much of a user base on offer for Apple at all considering the platform would have no programs. In fact if Apple attempted to go to x86 architecture right now they would send themselves bankrupt.
There are far better moves Apple can make if they want to try and lure a little of this market away but I'm pretty certain you will find the market of true hardcore gamers, although substantial, isn't quite as substantial as you believe. The current executive staff at Apple are actually pretty damn good at their jobs and have a pretty decent idea of what is needed for the path ahead.
The only major fault I really see with the line-up currently is there is no value at all in the low-end tower compared to other products. Never expect it to hit the depths of cheapness of the PC world though. People have to realise it is a lot more difficult to get the hardware a lot of people want out the door than they believe.
Comments
<strong>
No. We're not.
From what I understand Micro$oft was selling its game console at below cost. That kind of practice is unsustainable in the long term. . . .
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that it is common practice to sell Consoles near or below cost in the Video Game industry. They make thier money on the games, not the consoles. Also R&D cost for Consoles is spread out over an aproximate 4 year life cycle of the console and console OS, which quite a bit longer in the computer industry.
My point is just that the 2001 numbers are just as likely to be a spike as they are to show a trend.
I haven't played a computer game in well over six months, but I'm not blind to the market. Even if it's a niche market (and I think someone would have a hard time describing it as a niche) it's a profitable niche market. It's true that the gamer's upgrade cycle, at least for parts, is extraordinarily fast. Apple would be wise to better tap into this market.
iMacs are fine, it's actually what I own even though I indulge in a lot of different software. But it's not good for games. If it were, Apple would be selling more of them.
It just costs a lot more.
It's the Widescreen LCD iMac.
I think it looks terrific.
The Geforce 4mx is alot more powerful than the 2mx it replaces. However, I'd still like to see options for even more powerful graphics cards on the iMac. (I'd love to be able to buy a Geforce 4 titanium version with a G5!!! I'll be waiting a while for that version methinks...)
Fact is, games are as big if not bigger than the movie industry in sales.
Apple would be foolish to ignore a piece of that action. If they're going after the much smaller portable music player market worth $1 billion? Why not make a conscious effort to go after one worth billions upon billions more.
In terms of evolution? It appears Apple are making some efforts. Open Gl has come in the last few years. Designer kit. OS 'X' being a great platform to develop for. There's now Maya 4.5 allowing games companies to do good development work on a Mac if they choose to do so. An important win that one! Direct X conversion kits to bring Mac games to market SOONER. Then you've got a good games site on the Apple website...which I only discovered recently. Certainly. Apple aren't ignoring the use of the iMac to play games on as the blurb on the latest widescreen iMac shows.
Will the LCD iMac play DOOM 3? Probably not in its native resolution
Hardcore gamers machine? No. But the next clutch of 'power'Macs with an Ati 9700 or next gen' Nvidia card will certainly handle Doom 3.
I think there's never been a better time to be a Mac gamer. Games are coming over faster. They're the 'name' games.
Apple aren't as shy of the gaming market as they use to be. They mention games in their keynotes. So they're aware of how big the market is. Having the choice of Nvidia and Ati has certainly woken Ati up on the Mac. They're making better cards and Macs are getting them! Competition. A nice thing. Motorola could be next to get the treatment.
Apple used to have crap cards, no Open Gl and few 'name' games used to take ages to come over.
That's different now.
...they'd shift more inventory of the iMac IF they did use more cutting edge components! Stick in a G4 1.2-1.4 processor and a titanium graphics card options? You'd see them really shift...
Like I said...I wanna one with a G5 and ati 9700 inside....du-da-du-da!
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Will Apple be prepared to make a console and lose money on it? Apple lose money? I don't think so. They love profit. They have no concept of 'loss leaders'. At least not in terms of hardware... I don't see Apple making a console. I don't think they'd make it powerful enough. I don't think they'd market it well enough. I don't think they'd advertise it enough. I don't think their relationship with the gaming mags would be good enough. I don't think they could make it cheap enough. It won't happen.
They could repackage their Cube with a G3 600mhz and Geforce 4mx. Bare bones everything else and sell it as a £499 inc VAT gaming computer (that you could also use for work etc...) ala ye old Amiga 500.
I'd buy such a machine. Will Apple do it?
sigh...i don't think so...
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
iMacs are fine, it's actually what I own even though I indulge in a lot of different software. But it's not good for games. If it were, Apple would be selling more of them. "
You said it Bunge.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I believe that it is common practice to sell Consoles near or below cost in the Video Game industry. They make thier money on the games, not the consoles. Also R&D cost for Consoles is spread out over an aproximate 4 year life cycle of the console and console OS, which quite a bit longer in the computer industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you haven?t bought a console box within the first year, year and a half, of its introduction, you will not buy it after. Technology is moving that fast. I believe that the most cost effective way to keep up is to replace the graphics cards when a happy median of price to value is reached. I would not buy a top tear graphic card when it?s first released, but 6-12 months down the road, that graphic card is extremely appealing, and if it?s capable of decently running the current crop of games, I would buy. Thus, for about $150 to $200 you?ve updated your gaming system. And you?re not stuck with a dinosaur technology that is 4 years old.
mika.
<strong>
If you haven?t bought a console box within the first year, year and a half, of its introduction, you will not buy it after. Technology is moving that fast. I believe that the most cost effective way to keep up is to replace the graphics cards when a happy median of price to value is reached. I would not buy a top tear graphic card when it?s first released, but 6-12 months down the road, that graphic card is extremely appealing, and if it?s capable of decently running the current crop of games, I would buy. Thus, for about $150 to $200 you?ve updated your gaming system. And you?re not stuck with a dinosaur technology that is 4 years old.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.
<strong>
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most successful PC games have a multiplayer over internet/LAN connection component. Consoles, to date, do not have this. They will in the near future, but it's debateable how successful they will be. Personally, I don't think the market is there for online consoles, but who knows?
PC Games and console games are two worlds. Console games, on the whole, are more arcadeish. There are very few real time strategy games that are successful on consoles. Neither are vehicle/combat simulation games. Primarily, this is because the controllers just aren't versatile enough.
For the most part, gamers are wedded to their platforms. You will find very few consolers who are PC gamers nor the reverse. I have two consoles, but I rarely play them, when I game, I do it on the PC.
I agree with some of the others...this is an extremely lucrative and influential market that Apple would be advised to court with faster hardware.
CB: Apple is easily the most active computer vendor working on OpenGL. They are doing more of the heavy lifting to advance OpenGL than anyone else. They spent all year working with NVIDIA and ATI to define a unified shader extension. They basically put a stake in the ground and got both companies to work towards it. They chaired the OpenGL working group on the vertex shaders, and they've been very influential. So they're completely engaged in that."
Maybe Apple aint as stupid as they used to be, eh?
This is useful for high end workstation and games.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>2001 is a poor year for comparisons. It was the first time ever that a generation of home console systems was superior gaming technology than the home computer systems. Those systems will still be around in 3-4 years, but the computers by then will be twice as fast.
My point is just that the 2001 numbers are just as likely to be a spike as they are to show a trend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
2001 was not the year where the consoles would show a spike in sales. It would be this year. If you recall, neither the XBox nor the GC were out until the END of 2001. And even then, they only had a handful of titles available.
[quote]Originally posted by Thresher:
<strong>
The most successful PC games have a multiplayer over internet/LAN connection component. Consoles, to date, do not have this. They will in the near future, but it's debateable how successful they will be. Personally, I don't think the market is there for online consoles, but who knows?
PC Games and console games are two worlds. Console games, on the whole, are more arcadeish. There are very few real time strategy games that are successful on consoles. Neither are vehicle/combat simulation games. Primarily, this is because the controllers just aren't versatile enough.
For the most part, gamers are wedded to their platforms. You will find very few consolers who are PC gamers nor the reverse. I have two consoles, but I rarely play them, when I game, I do it on the PC.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's to stop some console maker from making a keyboard like controller/mouse for these RPG's and strategy games? Even FPS are arguably better on the PC because of the keyboard. BUT the hardware is better/cheaper/more convenient on the console side. It's not much of a stretch to see the PC game market devoured by some aggressive marketing by Sony, MS or Nintendo. They've got all the pieces, just not the titles. Again, not too hard for them to do.
The bottom line is this: the PC gaming world is on the decline. No doubt, though, that it's still lucrative. But if you think that the mistake Apple is making is not catering to the gaming world, you're mistaken. Yes, they would do extremely well to have a low-cost tower, but not for the aformentioned reasons. Everything in the iMac is upgradable with the exception of the video stuff. If that's your only quibble, maybe it's time to reexamine your priorities in a computer.
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Yikes!
Torifile just Devastated you guys with that last post. Sorry but you just got stretched across the canvas with that Hook.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks!
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Fine.
I guess some ppl just need to grow up ...
Of-course, if you're too grown up senility starts to set in. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mika.
<strong>The bottom line is this: the PC gaming world is on the decline. No doubt, though, that it's still lucrative. But if you think that the mistake Apple is making is not catering to the gaming world, you're mistaken. Yes, they would do extremely well to have a low-cost tower, but not for the aformentioned reasons. Everything in the iMac is upgradable with the exception of the video stuff. If that's your only quibble, maybe it's time to reexamine your priorities in a computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Re-examine priorities? This is the same atitude that has given us a 5% share. Apple has ASSUMED that computer users would use the computer for whatever Apple determined was appropriate. The reality is quite different.
I'm not saying there isn't a market for the all in one device, there certainly is. But if you want high a profit margin, enthusiast computers would be a much better market to pursue.
AMD was an also-ran until the advent of the Athlon. It was the first CPU that could compete with the intel Pentiums (in the PC market). By catering to the enthusiast market, they have been able to use word of mouth to increase market share incredibly. There just isn't anything that offers the bang for the buck in the PC world like the Athlons. While AMD hasn't made much headway in the business market yet, they have made a substantial market grab in the consumer market. Eventually this will turn into market share in the business environment.
If Apple were to switch to the X86-64 platform (the upcoming 64bit CPU), there would be a ready made base of enthusiasts willing to try it. These people are very influential in the PC world, it would be good to have them on our side.
I guess since I use both platforms, I see the benefits and problems with each. PC enthusiasts see Apple fanatics as snobs with overpriced, underperforming hardware. They don't understand the benefits of the OS or good design.
Apple fanatics tend to be myopic about what is going on in the rest of the industry. Gamers and enthusiasts drive the PC industry. No one needs a P4 to run Word or Outlook. They buy all that power because of marketing and gaming performance.
Apple ignores those factors at its own peril.
Putting an Apple store in SoHo just solidifies the opinion that Macs are only good for artsy fartsy types. If Apple is serious about market share, we need to get stores in more mainstream areas, not just boutique shops in well monied areas (like Woodfield).
I am definitely not artsy fartsy, I am one of those enthusiasts you seem to feel is not worthy of Apple to pursue. I appreciate the engineering of my Powerbook, the design is marvelous, and the OS is extremely well designed. I have about $20k in computer equipment of various types in my house. I not only influence my family and friends computer buying decisions (often going as far as building PCs for them), but because of my job at the US's largest personal insurance company, I can have some influence at my company to veto what equipment we use or don't use (I don't want to overstate this, my decisions often come down to vendor, not the technology). I am also not alone. The PC world has plenty like me.
<strong>Everything in the iMac is upgradable with the exception of the video stuff
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Fine.
I guess some ppl just need to grow up ...
Of-course, if you're too grown up senility starts to set in. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said I don't play games, I just use a gaming machine for it (GC).
I agree in principle with the purpose of this thread and that is to have a low priced, expandable system. I just wish you didn't tie it so heavily into this perceived need for gamers to come over to the platform. It's a bad reason, especially considering the competition in the console market.
<strong>The CPU in the Fp iMacs IS NOT upgradeable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
touché. Right. Again, I'm not disputing the need, just the reasoning (and I'm bored on a Friday night
<strong>
I agree in principle with the purpose of this thread and that is to have a low priced, expandable system. I just wish you didn't tie it so heavily into this perceived need for gamers to come over to the platform. It's a bad reason, especially considering the competition in the console market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To me, gamers would be an after thought to the others that would use the product, but their dollars could be significant. As good as the games market is right now, implementing this Tower would bring in more gamers. That means more users. That means a larger market share. That means more software (including games). That entices more users. That means a larger market share....
<strong>Right!
With that sort of thinking I suppose you would also exclude any kind of decent audio capabilities for your computer, because you already have a dedicated stereo for that. Whatever..
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Yep, I do exclude the audio of my computer. I don't consider the audio of any computer any better then "fair", while my stereo (which I spent much more on) is much better than decent. It also has been with me (and will continue to be) for far longer than any computer I will ever own. Stereo equipment doesn't become obsolete on a planned 2-3 year cycle. But then again, I still consider vinyl to be vastly superior to cd.
Torifile, you are one hosile mo'fo'
I want to "switch" apple! Where's the hardware I need to do so? Give me a Powermac with modern hardware and I will come! (I picture SJ hearing a voice like Costner in field of dreams "If you build it, they will come...")
Some great points were made in previous posts. The imac is a "dead end". Its a great starting point but I really don't like wasting money on a "throw away" monitor. Now if they could just make it so my old imac (that i would buy now) could act as a monitor for my the new powermac i would buy in 2004. Its just too hard to justify almost $5000 for a new powermac with 17" LCD when it's sporting technology such as SDRAM from around 2 or 3 years ago. I have spent about that much for 4 PC's and 1 17" CRT in the past 5 years. (See, gamers do upgrade often
That said. I think I understand how much this platform means to all of you and contrary to the "doomed" threads I see pop up once in a while I think the opposite is true. In PC forums I see a lot of "buzz". Games are important to PC users. A lot of Mac only people don't understand because all you've had for so long were scraps, a 10 year old MYST game and blizzard (a shining star) but now the trickle has turned into a flood with OS X and PC gamers are taking notice! "Buzz" is very good...and we have no love of Microsoft... I hope to be a part of the family as soon as I see hardware worthy of the money I've set aside....I can't wait!
Lastly, what is the obsession with AMD? Thats all I hear about on these boards. Why not Intel? Has Intel somehow angered the Apple gods too? Oh and great thread PC^KILLA! (Perhaps a poorly worded topic title though
Ok really lastly this time, the console/PC debate will be raging forever so why bother fighting it here? They are 2 completely different beasts with very little content overlap. Anyone who uses both would know that...
<strong>
You can still buy a PS 1. The PS2 has been out for more than a year and it is outselling the XBox. The cost of a console, especially a year after its release is much lower than that of a computer, and the Game Cube is sellig for $149.99 today, the cost of your video card. Doller for doller a console is much more affordable than the PC as a game platform. Also, since 2-3 years into its life the archatecture has NOT changed, the games you buy will still perform as well on your 2 year old console as they do on a new one. This is not always the case with computers due to the demand of gamers and developers pushing the computers to thier fullest, requiring the latest and greatest graphics cards, and CPU's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Except I believe this is an enforced cycle...ie the developers insist on developing for bleeding edge hardware. In many cases, this is simply to cover up a distinct lack of imagination, creativity, and optimization. As an example, how many times can you serve up SimCity, with new, needier graphics, and continue to sell? Or the same with Doom et al?
<strong>
If Apple were to switch to the X86-64 platform (the upcoming 64bit CPU), there would be a ready made base of enthusiasts willing to try it. These people are very influential in the PC world, it would be good to have them on our side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There wouldn't be much of a user base on offer for Apple at all considering the platform would have no programs. In fact if Apple attempted to go to x86 architecture right now they would send themselves bankrupt.
There are far better moves Apple can make if they want to try and lure a little of this market away but I'm pretty certain you will find the market of true hardcore gamers, although substantial, isn't quite as substantial as you believe. The current executive staff at Apple are actually pretty damn good at their jobs and have a pretty decent idea of what is needed for the path ahead.
The only major fault I really see with the line-up currently is there is no value at all in the low-end tower compared to other products. Never expect it to hit the depths of cheapness of the PC world though. People have to realise it is a lot more difficult to get the hardware a lot of people want out the door than they believe.