<strong>Wow tempers on the board have really flared lately. Damn PC's causing dissension from within the ranks.
Hey guys screw PC's we're here to talk about Macs. When I need a bunch of megahertz and companies with Big Brother mentalities I'll go Wintel. Right now I'm interested in where Apple is headed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
easy for you to say, you apparantly make a great deal of money and believe Apple can only remain open if they overcharge for everything with design as the excuse.
I have no problem with Apple being elitist or much more money... but when you are getting significantly less for that money and its blatantly overpriced that's not alright. there's a difference.
go ahead, come back, say some bullshit about Apple and BMW. great. no one cares.
I was talking to one of my friends yesterday (PC user, but smart about computers) and he was saying that Microsoft is more likely to go out of business than Apple, because Apple has some of the strongest customer loyalty of all the companies out there (especially computer companies). People hate MS. They're constantly being sued (he mentioned a recent billion dollar lawsuit, which I looked up and must refer to the suit filed by Sun having to do with Java).
I don't know if I agree with him, but he certainly has a point. Right now people are not buying things by MS because they like MS, it's because that's all they know.
Anyway, so many people are willing to buy Macs no matter the price and performance that Apple has a base of almost-guaranteed customers. I'm sure that if Apple did ever go out of business, people would hoard Macs and it would become more of a cult than ever. Some other company may even try to pick up the pieces. But I don't think Apple is in grave danger of going out of business.
[quote]I was talking to one of my friends yesterday (PC user, but smart about computers) and he was saying that Microsoft is more likely to go out of business than Apple, because Apple has some of the strongest customer loyalty of all the companies out there (especially computer companies).<hr></blockquote>Apple SEEMS to have the strongest loyalty because whenever so many people switch to another brand, the people left behind are obviously more loyal. So as marketshare approaches 0, customer loyalty approaches infinity. I'm sure there are SOME people out there with winXP computers who have never seen a bluescreen, all their peripherals are recognized, never been hit with a virus or rooted and the machine runs much faster than their win98 box. They MIGHT like MS.
Apple isn't in danger until a killer app comes along that requires a faster machine, or desktop computers take on more roles in a household.
<strong>I was talking to one of my friends yesterday (PC user, but smart about computers) and he was saying that Microsoft is more likely to go out of business than Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha ha ha, what a joke! I am literally on the floor laughing. AAPL's entire market cap is ~$5b. MSFT last quarter alone made $7b. You do the math.
<topic switch>
OS X is the single most brilliant move Apple made. I know we love Mac's design and innovation but fvck all that for now. Several of my techie PC friends acquired Macs for the same reason I did - the OS. (All of us still own multiple PCs, however.) Just this week, I brought the iBook to work the other day (IT department - large publicly traded company). Everyone was also impressed - most so by the OS.
Apple has made great strides. It has already induced PC users to switch becuase of its ease-of-use, its designs, and ands its OS. The only missing link is its hardware. This is why we are talking about this now.
Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the P4 hitting 5GHz in mid-2003. GPUL should be released at that time. Hyper-Threading isn't as good as a multi-core design. As long as GPUL has a high enough clock speed, 2GHz+, it should do quite well.
I can't help but feel a bit hopeful after reading this.
A 64-bit processor running at 2 GHz, now that will be something worth buying.
Somebody stated that the uses of 64 bit are limited. I would like to hear more on that topic. (anybody specialist here?).
Isn't 64 bit very good for the stuff most professionals use Apple for: image processing (together with, nowadays, video editing).
I mean, 64 bits churning through your processor where it used to be 32, especially if you ARE crunching, that has to make a difference (for users, mp3 encoding at 50x speed or so).
It does coincide as well with the acquiring of that video software company, what's their name.
This 64 bit processor, now that is something good.
If anyone is interested in buying an Itanium, they're really not going to care about the P4 speeds. No one is going to drop a $5000 processor (or 16 cpus) in a system costing between $10,000 and $150,000, and not know that Mhz is irrelevant for their needs.
I don't think INTC has anything to worry about in that regards.
Perhaps a better example would be the Banais mobile processors (based on the P3 core) and the current P3 1.4 Ghz chips used in servers. Now those are chips that the general public might end up buying.
And not coincidentally, I might add, INTC is going to a rating system for their Banais processors. It won't be the same type of rating system AMD uses, but it will accomplish the same goal - not losing customers because of Mhz marketting.
Comments
<strong>Wow tempers on the board have really flared lately. Damn PC's causing dissension from within the ranks.
Hey guys screw PC's we're here to talk about Macs. When I need a bunch of megahertz and companies with Big Brother mentalities I'll go Wintel. Right now I'm interested in where Apple is headed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
easy for you to say, you apparantly make a great deal of money and believe Apple can only remain open if they overcharge for everything with design as the excuse.
I have no problem with Apple being elitist or much more money... but when you are getting significantly less for that money and its blatantly overpriced that's not alright. there's a difference.
go ahead, come back, say some bullshit about Apple and BMW. great. no one cares.
I don't know if I agree with him, but he certainly has a point. Right now people are not buying things by MS because they like MS, it's because that's all they know.
Anyway, so many people are willing to buy Macs no matter the price and performance that Apple has a base of almost-guaranteed customers. I'm sure that if Apple did ever go out of business, people would hoard Macs and it would become more of a cult than ever. Some other company may even try to pick up the pieces. But I don't think Apple is in grave danger of going out of business.
Apple isn't in danger until a killer app comes along that requires a faster machine, or desktop computers take on more roles in a household.
<strong>I was talking to one of my friends yesterday (PC user, but smart about computers) and he was saying that Microsoft is more likely to go out of business than Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha ha ha, what a joke! I am literally on the floor laughing. AAPL's entire market cap is ~$5b. MSFT last quarter alone made $7b. You do the math.
<topic switch>
OS X is the single most brilliant move Apple made. I know we love Mac's design and innovation but fvck all that for now. Several of my techie PC friends acquired Macs for the same reason I did - the OS. (All of us still own multiple PCs, however.) Just this week, I brought the iBook to work the other day (IT department - large publicly traded company). Everyone was also impressed - most so by the OS.
Apple has made great strides. It has already induced PC users to switch becuase of its ease-of-use, its designs, and ands its OS. The only missing link is its hardware. This is why we are talking about this now.
A 64-bit processor running at 2 GHz, now that will be something worth buying.
Somebody stated that the uses of 64 bit are limited. I would like to hear more on that topic. (anybody specialist here?).
Isn't 64 bit very good for the stuff most professionals use Apple for: image processing (together with, nowadays, video editing).
I mean, 64 bits churning through your processor where it used to be 32, especially if you ARE crunching, that has to make a difference (for users, mp3 encoding at 50x speed or so).
It does coincide as well with the acquiring of that video software company, what's their name.
This 64 bit processor, now that is something good.
I'm interested.
I don't think INTC has anything to worry about in that regards.
Perhaps a better example would be the Banais mobile processors (based on the P3 core) and the current P3 1.4 Ghz chips used in servers. Now those are chips that the general public might end up buying.
And not coincidentally, I might add, INTC is going to a rating system for their Banais processors. It won't be the same type of rating system AMD uses, but it will accomplish the same goal - not losing customers because of Mhz marketting.
neye