The question or the problem is that Apple need good chips. If there was good chips, nobody will ask these question. Do you ask if the CEO of Dell need to be replaced, nor the one of HP, or IBM ( i don't even know or care who is the boss of IBM) ?
In more than twenty years, we have seen many CEO of Apple and there was not so great : they where all bosered by the same equation : be innovative, make money and do not be the standart (and thus being stuck to deal with a small portion of the market).
I think there are several idiots out there (and I DO mean this with the greatest of love) who seriously don't understand the situation Apple is in. THEY don't control the chips they get, and they can only build computer systems around these chip designs, and no matter WHAT CEO is running Apple, THEY wouldn't be able to control that either. Apple is doing great with what they can, AND they're staying competitive in an increasingly difficult market. I'm not an Apple apologist, but I've seen what other people running Apple have done.
Steve, he's the best thing they've got, and the only one to run Apple.
<strong>I think there are several idiots out there (and I DO mean this with the greatest of love) who seriously don't understand the situation Apple is in. THEY don't control the chips they get, and they can only build computer systems around these chip designs, and no matter WHAT CEO is running Apple, THEY wouldn't be able to control that either. Apple is doing great with what they can, AND they're staying competitive in an increasingly difficult market. I'm not an Apple apologist, but I've seen what other people running Apple have done.
Steve, he's the best thing they've got, and the only one to run Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem of Apple is that it looks like a Mercedes (expansive and very few options, even if it's better nowdays) with a 50 HP motor.
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And YOU have to understand the precarious situation Apple is in: they have to walk the thin line of designing EVERYTHING that goes in Macs, including the Digital Hub software and offering them at prices that will guarantee they didn't waste their time AND making a profit in these tight economical times. The difference between 128 and 256 chips may be 30 dollars to Apple, but multiply that by hundreds of thousands of machines sold and we're talking about the difference between making money this quarter and not.
Don't you see that there's tons of little things like that that Apple MUST do to stay afloat?
Isn't Apple's goal to gain marketshare? To reach that goal they need to either:
a) Lower prices
This might not be easy but if they're going to keep the specs the same then they need to do something. The prices of the computers for the specs they have aren't good at all.
or
b) Make competitive hardware
This Apple could do, even without having faster processors. It's 2003 now, a 100MHz system bus is crazy. That was good when? In 1999. Come on. 128MB of RAM would be fine if Apple had an operating system that ran decently with that amount of RAM. The fact is 128MB isn't enough for OS X. It slows down the machines so much. Try using a 800MHz iBook. With 128MB it sucks. With more RAM it's a great little computer.
This might not be easy but if they're going to keep the specs the same then they need to do something. The prices of the computers for the specs they have aren't good at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lower prices at the expense at being blasted by Wall Street and shareholders. You see the reaction Apple gets whenever their profit percentage per machine is down by two points! They don't need bad press, so they try to keep profits up, which is the KEY goal of any business. BMW doesn't care about market share but Toyota might. Just as long as BMW keeps making great cars and they keep their profits up, they are satisfied. I believe Apple has a similar attitude.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>b) Make competitive hardware
This Apple could do, even without having faster processors. It's 2003 now, a 100MHz system bus is crazy. That was good when? In 1999. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you think Apple is aware of that problem? But they can't do anything unless the PROCESSORS support it. Don't you think the bus speeds would be higher if the G4 supported it? You have a valid argument if the IBM 970 comes with a 166MHz bus. Only THEN will I believe Apple is purposefully disabling the technologies they put in their Macs.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>128MB of RAM would be fine if Apple had an operating system that ran decently with that amount of RAM. The fact is 128MB isn't enough for OS X. It slows down the machines so much. Try using a 800MHz iBook. With 128MB it sucks. With more RAM it's a great little computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but think about what I wrote above, firstly. And secondly, they *could* keep system ram at a minimum to support third parties AND run promotions like that at the Apple store right now: double ram for forty dollars.
Apple is a business, no matter how much you'd like it to be a religion.
Don't you think Apple is aware of that problem? But they can't do anything unless the PROCESSORS support it. Don't you think the bus speeds would be higher if the G4 supported it? You have a valid argument if the IBM 970 comes with a 166MHz bus. Only THEN will I believe Apple is purposefully disabling the technologies they put in their Macs.
<hr></blockquote>
I know that the processors don't support higher than what the G4 towers have, but that's not what I'm saying. There's no reason why the iMacs can't have a 133MHz bus. The processors DO SUPPORT IT.
[quote]Originally posted by Gambit:
Apple is a business, no matter how much you'd like it to be a religion.<hr></blockquote>
Trust me, I don't want Apple to be a religion. I want them to be a SUCCESSFUL business and GAIN MARKETSHARE (which is also what Steve has said he wants to do). The way Apple is right now they aren't going to gain anything.
<strong>I know that the processors don't support higher than what the G4 towers have, but that's not what I'm saying. There's no reason why the iMacs can't have a 133MHz bus. The processors DO SUPPORT IT.]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aye, I agree. But there HAS to be a disparity between 'Pro' hardware and 'Consumer' hardware or else their current business model is shot. <shrugs> There's not much to say other than that.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>Trust me, I don't want Apple to be a religion. I want them to be a SUCCESSFUL business and GAIN MARKETSHARE (which is also what Steve has said he wants to do). The way Apple is right now they aren't going to gain anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you're getting one out of two, I suppose. They ARE a sucessful business, and they're working on mindshare now with their stores and the whole 'digital hub' thing so they can get market share. Working at an Apple Store, I've been able to convince many Windows users to switch JUST by showing them the iApps.
However, if you have a plan for Apple to gain market share, I'm sure they're willing to listen. After all, it was an Apple customer that coined the phrase 'Velocity Engine' and recieved a brand new G4 tower for his idea. I'm sure they'll give you a bit more than that if you can figure this out.
Comments
The question or the problem is that Apple need good chips. If there was good chips, nobody will ask these question. Do you ask if the CEO of Dell need to be replaced, nor the one of HP, or IBM ( i don't even know or care who is the boss of IBM) ?
In more than twenty years, we have seen many CEO of Apple and there was not so great : they where all bosered by the same equation : be innovative, make money and do not be the standart (and thus being stuck to deal with a small portion of the market).
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
Steve, he's the best thing they've got, and the only one to run Apple.
<strong>I think there are several idiots out there (and I DO mean this with the greatest of love) who seriously don't understand the situation Apple is in. THEY don't control the chips they get, and they can only build computer systems around these chip designs, and no matter WHAT CEO is running Apple, THEY wouldn't be able to control that either. Apple is doing great with what they can, AND they're staying competitive in an increasingly difficult market. I'm not an Apple apologist, but I've seen what other people running Apple have done.
Steve, he's the best thing they've got, and the only one to run Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.
<strong>
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem of Apple is that it looks like a Mercedes (expansive and very few options, even if it's better nowdays) with a 50 HP motor.
<strong>
But you have to realize that it's not on the lack of speed of the processors. I think we all know that it's not Apple's fault that the G4 isn't faster. Apple could (and should) do things like lower the prices a little (and just a little so they still have good profits), include more RAM (128MB on the low end iMac and on the iBooks is horrible), and the little things like that. It's not all Motorola's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And YOU have to understand the precarious situation Apple is in: they have to walk the thin line of designing EVERYTHING that goes in Macs, including the Digital Hub software and offering them at prices that will guarantee they didn't waste their time AND making a profit in these tight economical times. The difference between 128 and 256 chips may be 30 dollars to Apple, but multiply that by hundreds of thousands of machines sold and we're talking about the difference between making money this quarter and not.
Don't you see that there's tons of little things like that that Apple MUST do to stay afloat?
a) Lower prices
This might not be easy but if they're going to keep the specs the same then they need to do something. The prices of the computers for the specs they have aren't good at all.
or
b) Make competitive hardware
This Apple could do, even without having faster processors. It's 2003 now, a 100MHz system bus is crazy. That was good when? In 1999. Come on. 128MB of RAM would be fine if Apple had an operating system that ran decently with that amount of RAM. The fact is 128MB isn't enough for OS X. It slows down the machines so much. Try using a 800MHz iBook. With 128MB it sucks. With more RAM it's a great little computer.
<strong>a) Lower prices
This might not be easy but if they're going to keep the specs the same then they need to do something. The prices of the computers for the specs they have aren't good at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lower prices at the expense at being blasted by Wall Street and shareholders. You see the reaction Apple gets whenever their profit percentage per machine is down by two points! They don't need bad press, so they try to keep profits up, which is the KEY goal of any business. BMW doesn't care about market share but Toyota might. Just as long as BMW keeps making great cars and they keep their profits up, they are satisfied. I believe Apple has a similar attitude.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>b) Make competitive hardware
This Apple could do, even without having faster processors. It's 2003 now, a 100MHz system bus is crazy. That was good when? In 1999. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you think Apple is aware of that problem? But they can't do anything unless the PROCESSORS support it. Don't you think the bus speeds would be higher if the G4 supported it? You have a valid argument if the IBM 970 comes with a 166MHz bus. Only THEN will I believe Apple is purposefully disabling the technologies they put in their Macs.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>128MB of RAM would be fine if Apple had an operating system that ran decently with that amount of RAM. The fact is 128MB isn't enough for OS X. It slows down the machines so much. Try using a 800MHz iBook. With 128MB it sucks. With more RAM it's a great little computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but think about what I wrote above, firstly. And secondly, they *could* keep system ram at a minimum to support third parties AND run promotions like that at the Apple store right now: double ram for forty dollars.
Apple is a business, no matter how much you'd like it to be a religion.
Don't you think Apple is aware of that problem? But they can't do anything unless the PROCESSORS support it. Don't you think the bus speeds would be higher if the G4 supported it? You have a valid argument if the IBM 970 comes with a 166MHz bus. Only THEN will I believe Apple is purposefully disabling the technologies they put in their Macs.
<hr></blockquote>
I know that the processors don't support higher than what the G4 towers have, but that's not what I'm saying. There's no reason why the iMacs can't have a 133MHz bus. The processors DO SUPPORT IT.
[quote]Originally posted by Gambit:
Apple is a business, no matter how much you'd like it to be a religion.<hr></blockquote>
Trust me, I don't want Apple to be a religion. I want them to be a SUCCESSFUL business and GAIN MARKETSHARE (which is also what Steve has said he wants to do). The way Apple is right now they aren't going to gain anything.
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>I know that the processors don't support higher than what the G4 towers have, but that's not what I'm saying. There's no reason why the iMacs can't have a 133MHz bus. The processors DO SUPPORT IT.]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aye, I agree. But there HAS to be a disparity between 'Pro' hardware and 'Consumer' hardware or else their current business model is shot. <shrugs> There's not much to say other than that.
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>Trust me, I don't want Apple to be a religion. I want them to be a SUCCESSFUL business and GAIN MARKETSHARE (which is also what Steve has said he wants to do). The way Apple is right now they aren't going to gain anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you're getting one out of two, I suppose. They ARE a sucessful business, and they're working on mindshare now with their stores and the whole 'digital hub' thing so they can get market share. Working at an Apple Store, I've been able to convince many Windows users to switch JUST by showing them the iApps.
However, if you have a plan for Apple to gain market share, I'm sure they're willing to listen. After all, it was an Apple customer that coined the phrase 'Velocity Engine' and recieved a brand new G4 tower for his idea. I'm sure they'll give you a bit more than that if you can figure this out.
Become president of the board, and let new blood take the helm.
Steve.