While that may all be true tink, I think there is a problem that is either out of Apple's control or something they are internally trying to solve. And that is causing for the delays and prolonged product cycle, that we are currently in.
Apple really does need to have fresh products for each product, about 3 times a year. Is every 4-5 months unreasonable?\
Steve is always working on the next big dream, so I know that just because there arent updates right now, when there is they will be awesome, as usual. And that's the thing, for Apple it is not just about specs, it's about what can you do with your Mac. Speed helps us do things faster, but I am personally more interested in new software, a refined OS, and more extensions of the digital lifestyle....
Which is why I am going to buy a new PowerBook, of course, once they are updated.
As far as the PC industry as whole is concerned, (excluding Apple), you will see that whenever there is something that is the slightest bit new, most everyone will jump on it. This goes for memory, hard drives, graphics cards, audio cards as well as the huge range of cpu choices.
Refreshes in the PC industry's ecosystem as a whole is so much more diverce and fluid then anything on the Mac side.
This it not necessarily a bad thing, however any amount of stagnation in the Apple refresh cycle is that much more apparent to the end user.
First, if you're trying to keep component costs down, you agree to buy them in large quantities. But if you're not Dell, it'll take you a while to go through all of them. So Apple is in fact locked into getting component X with a given set of specs for a certain amount of time, or for an amount of units that exceeds a quarter's sales. Speeding up the upgrade cycle would mean a bigger logistical burden and higher component prices.
Second, Apple doesn't just throw things into towers and boot them out the door. Something like the PowerBook has to be designed carefully, because a new component means new size and heat characteristics that Apple has to plan for. Also, in 3 out of four of their lines, the graphics chipset is soldered to the motherboard, and although there's an AGP interface, it's not a slot. It's traces soldered to pins (one or two PowerBook models actually do have a graphics daughtercard of sorts, but it's an Apple-specific layout). The graphics cards makers do try to keep pin compatibility to some extent (ATi is better at this than nVIDIA) but it's not guaranteed, and at any rate any responsible systems integrator will test the part to make sure that it really does work with the rest of the system. That takes time and money. Given that the PowerBook just had its best-selling quarter on record (nearly 200,000 units), I don't think that it needs an upgrade as badly as some people do.
Then, of course, Apple has 4-5 weeks of channel inventory at any given time. A much faster upgrade cycle would just saddle their retail partners (and Apple itself, since Apple does retail now) with out-of-spec models on a nearly constant basis.
According to MacCentral, Apple is happy with a 2- to 3-quarter product refresh cycle. So I don't see that changing any time soon.
More regular incremental updates would do a lot to soothe the worries of a lot of people buying Macs, who cringe at the thought of buying the exact same hardware that was available 6 months ago or more at the exact same price.
For every person that complains that Apple's updates aren't frequent enough, there's a person that complains they are too frequent. How many times have we heard "##$#?*# Apple, I bought my machine x weeks ago and now they bring out something new"? Apple can't win either way.
I still believe that if they were to lower prices as products start getting somewhat stale, people will still buy the products at a reduced rate even knowing that something new was right around the corner because they would be getting a good deal on the old stuff. Many would choose to pay top dollar for the new stuff and the price performance ratio never becomes a barrier for potential switchers. I am sure I am looking at things a bit too simplistically. I have bought and used PCs for most of my computer using life except for fairly recently. I know the mindset of the computer shopper. The main reason I didn't buy Macs for the longest time was that some spec (other than processor speed) was woefully behind the rest of the market and no salesman could ever explain to me satisfactorily why the Mac had a slower or smaller HD, or graphics processor, or optical drive, and still cost so much more money. These things may seem obvious to you all, (and to some extent, to me too now), but such excuses will never fly with the other 98%.
Speaking of updates, uhm...every single Apple product except the iBook, has a same business day shipping time. iBooks are at 1-3. Ouch...GO FASTER MAY!
I still believe that if they were to lower prices as products start getting somewhat stale, people will still buy the products at a reduced rate even knowing that something new was right around the corner because they would be getting a good deal on the old stuff.
This does happen, just not in the exact way you're describing: Apple VARs start bundling more and more stuff in with the Mac while holding the price, and even Apple gets jiggy with rebates and promotions near the end of a quarter. (Rebates have another purpose as well: Fred Anderson has said that Apple uses them to test how lower price points impact sales, which is much safer financially than actually lowering the price. Rebates work on the premise that 80%-90% of the offers are never redeemed.) So you can in fact get a good deal on the old stuff. Sometimes you have to look outside Apple-branded channels, though. They don't want to compete much more than they already do with their own VARs.
First, if you're trying to keep component costs down, you agree to buy them in large quantities. But if you're not Dell, it'll take you a while to go through all of them.
Dell doesn't actually buy their components in super predetermined number of quantity; they buy on an as need basis, which is why they can drop the price much more quickly than competitors.
Dell doesn't actually buy their components in super predetermined number of quantity; they buy on an as need basis, which is why they can drop the price much more quickly than competitors.
They also convince suppliers to move or build warehouses near Dell's plants to minimize logistical problems.
But what you omitted from your explanation is that it takes a fair amount of size and clout to make that strategy work. If Apple had Dell's volume, they could do it as well.
But they'd still have to account for integration testing, engineering issues in the PowerBooks et al, and the inevitable lag in the retail channel.
In other words, that strategy only works if you accept certain compromises in design and testing, and it works best if you don't have a retail channel.
They also convince suppliers to move or build warehouses near Dell's plants to minimize logistical problems.
But what you omitted from your explanation is that it takes a fair amount of size and clout to make that strategy work. If Apple had Dell's volume, they could do it as well.
But they'd still have to account for integration testing, engineering issues in the PowerBooks et al, and the inevitable lag in the retail channel.
In other words, that strategy only works if you accept certain compromises in design and testing, and it works best if you don't have a retail channel.
You're right. But I think we shan't forget that Dell at one point was the low man on the totem pole in the PC industry, and they had to fight their way up to the top like everyone else does.
Granted they are using the PC hardware, etc. Don't misconstrue my statement as a for/against argument on Apple's update cycle. My statement was just to clarify how Dell does things differently than just about everyone else.
As far as G5 graphics cards go, the top of the line computer should have the top of the line graphics card at all times. That is the easiest component to update in a tower. It does not need any fan fair, just quiet updates that keep it current. I don't expect miracles. I just want them to stay on top of the things they can control. Maybe they are. But it just seems like every few months, one or more of their products starts to look out of kilter. I was just thinking that there must be a way for them to keep that from happening.
That makes too much sense.
However, nice to see they haven't outdone my G5 2x2 over half a year after its introduction.
ye...I have to agree with the rebate thing as a signal that something large is coming out, or a product is coming to the end of its life.... Apple does this all of time...
As a consumer, I wish Apple can simply lower their prices, even just a little bit during the life of their product cycles...somthing that reflects fairly the going price of the technology they are selling...
In the end Apple pricing is what concerns me the most...
my 2 pennies...
(this will never be addressed...I know that for sure)
Just buy a new one when you need it. If you need the power of a dual 2Ghz G5 buy one. If you just browse and do email get an iBook. If you can wait for the latest and greatest the wait and speculate all you want. Meanwhile I am happy with my Macs. I bought them for what I needed them to do and they do it well and probably will for another year or so. The I'll go to the store and get another. No fuss. Just go do it.
Just buy a new one when you need it. If you need the power of a dual 2Ghz G5 buy one. If you just browse and do email get an iBook. If you can wait for the latest and greatest the wait and speculate all you want. Meanwhile I am happy with my Macs. I bought them for what I needed them to do and they do it well and probably will for another year or so. The I'll go to the store and get another. No fuss. Just go do it.
As a consumer, I wish Apple can simply lower their prices, even just a little bit during the life of their product cycles...somthing that reflects fairly the going price of the technology they are selling...
(this will never be addressed...I know that for sure)
Lowering prices during a life cycle would help clearing inventories, but on the other hand would no one pay the full price anymore, since you could get the same device cheaper just a few months later.
Lowering prices during a life cycle would help clearing inventories, but on the other hand would no one pay the full price anymore, since you could get the same device cheaper just a few months later.
People that need it will buy it, for God's sake it is not always about price and deals.
In PC land, give it six months and there will be offerings that are twice as fast with more features for less than you paid for your last one. Will future Macs see better update cycles with the introduction of better manufacturing process, or is it simply a marketing decision?
Intel announces 2.0 GHz processor: August 27, 2001
Intel announces 3.0 GHz processor: April 13, 2003
Apple announces 2.0 GHz processor: June 23, 2003
Apple announces 3.0 GHz processor: June 28, 2004 (Not yet, but we all know it will be)
Apple is getting back in the game, but this nonsense of x86 processors doubling so quickly is just that. It SEEMS like the ball is always rolling as they announce and ship just about every increase they possibly can as Intel and AMD vie for the speed crown, but the reality is much more realistic. The only tech that has really lagged behind over the past few years is RAM. But what does that matter since the G4 barely even uses DDR over plain old SDR. every other option has been readily available via PCI cards, much as it is in the PC world. Granted OEMs are quicker to implement some features, but where are the OEM FW 800 connections? Nowhere, only through PCI.
The iMac is looking like a weak and neglected product, but I expect that will change as this Digital Hub marketing strategy is pushed even more by "Office for the rest of your life" and the iPod/ITMS craze.
As for 6 months update schedules, i don't see how that is important with the G5 surely being pushed out to all products except eMac, and iBook by the end of the year. Once these things get out, there will be more than enough power to run.
With the G4, every bit of speed you could get mattered, but with G5, that is less important. If Apple releases 3 GHZ this year, 4 next year and 5 the year after, I think Apple will be way ahead of the PC curve as not only will the clock rate be zippity, but the 64 Bitness of it all will trounce PCs as the Apps/OS are released to support it. AMD sits at 2 and 2.2 GHz with their 64 bit chips, but how likely is 3.0 GHz before the end of the year with them? Not very.
Intel announces 2.0 GHz processor: August 27, 2001
Intel announces 3.0 GHz processor: April 13, 2003
.
You might want to check your notes on the second one. In December of 2002 The Pentium 4 3.06 GHz 533 bus was available. Last April could have been the intro of 3.0 Ghz on the 800 bus.
Comments
Apple really does need to have fresh products for each product, about 3 times a year. Is every 4-5 months unreasonable?
Steve is always working on the next big dream, so I know that just because there arent updates right now, when there is they will be awesome, as usual. And that's the thing, for Apple it is not just about specs, it's about what can you do with your Mac. Speed helps us do things faster, but I am personally more interested in new software, a refined OS, and more extensions of the digital lifestyle....
Which is why I am going to buy a new PowerBook, of course, once they are updated.
Refreshes in the PC industry's ecosystem as a whole is so much more diverce and fluid then anything on the Mac side.
This it not necessarily a bad thing, however any amount of stagnation in the Apple refresh cycle is that much more apparent to the end user.
First, if you're trying to keep component costs down, you agree to buy them in large quantities. But if you're not Dell, it'll take you a while to go through all of them. So Apple is in fact locked into getting component X with a given set of specs for a certain amount of time, or for an amount of units that exceeds a quarter's sales. Speeding up the upgrade cycle would mean a bigger logistical burden and higher component prices.
Second, Apple doesn't just throw things into towers and boot them out the door. Something like the PowerBook has to be designed carefully, because a new component means new size and heat characteristics that Apple has to plan for. Also, in 3 out of four of their lines, the graphics chipset is soldered to the motherboard, and although there's an AGP interface, it's not a slot. It's traces soldered to pins (one or two PowerBook models actually do have a graphics daughtercard of sorts, but it's an Apple-specific layout). The graphics cards makers do try to keep pin compatibility to some extent (ATi is better at this than nVIDIA) but it's not guaranteed, and at any rate any responsible systems integrator will test the part to make sure that it really does work with the rest of the system. That takes time and money. Given that the PowerBook just had its best-selling quarter on record (nearly 200,000 units), I don't think that it needs an upgrade as badly as some people do.
Then, of course, Apple has 4-5 weeks of channel inventory at any given time. A much faster upgrade cycle would just saddle their retail partners (and Apple itself, since Apple does retail now) with out-of-spec models on a nearly constant basis.
According to MacCentral, Apple is happy with a 2- to 3-quarter product refresh cycle. So I don't see that changing any time soon.
Originally posted by neilw
More regular incremental updates would do a lot to soothe the worries of a lot of people buying Macs, who cringe at the thought of buying the exact same hardware that was available 6 months ago or more at the exact same price.
For every person that complains that Apple's updates aren't frequent enough, there's a person that complains they are too frequent. How many times have we heard "##$#?*# Apple, I bought my machine x weeks ago and now they bring out something new"? Apple can't win either way.
Your last post makes a lot of sence!
Originally posted by tink
Thanks Amorph.
Your last post makes a lot of sence!
Ditto that.
I still believe that if they were to lower prices as products start getting somewhat stale, people will still buy the products at a reduced rate even knowing that something new was right around the corner because they would be getting a good deal on the old stuff. Many would choose to pay top dollar for the new stuff and the price performance ratio never becomes a barrier for potential switchers. I am sure I am looking at things a bit too simplistically. I have bought and used PCs for most of my computer using life except for fairly recently. I know the mindset of the computer shopper. The main reason I didn't buy Macs for the longest time was that some spec (other than processor speed) was woefully behind the rest of the market and no salesman could ever explain to me satisfactorily why the Mac had a slower or smaller HD, or graphics processor, or optical drive, and still cost so much more money. These things may seem obvious to you all, (and to some extent, to me too now), but such excuses will never fly with the other 98%.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Ditto that.
Thanks.
I still believe that if they were to lower prices as products start getting somewhat stale, people will still buy the products at a reduced rate even knowing that something new was right around the corner because they would be getting a good deal on the old stuff.
This does happen, just not in the exact way you're describing: Apple VARs start bundling more and more stuff in with the Mac while holding the price, and even Apple gets jiggy with rebates and promotions near the end of a quarter. (Rebates have another purpose as well: Fred Anderson has said that Apple uses them to test how lower price points impact sales, which is much safer financially than actually lowering the price. Rebates work on the premise that 80%-90% of the offers are never redeemed.) So you can in fact get a good deal on the old stuff. Sometimes you have to look outside Apple-branded channels, though. They don't want to compete much more than they already do with their own VARs.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple is up against two things here:
First, if you're trying to keep component costs down, you agree to buy them in large quantities. But if you're not Dell, it'll take you a while to go through all of them.
Dell doesn't actually buy their components in super predetermined number of quantity; they buy on an as need basis, which is why they can drop the price much more quickly than competitors.
Regards!
Originally posted by X X
Dell doesn't actually buy their components in super predetermined number of quantity; they buy on an as need basis, which is why they can drop the price much more quickly than competitors.
They also convince suppliers to move or build warehouses near Dell's plants to minimize logistical problems.
But what you omitted from your explanation is that it takes a fair amount of size and clout to make that strategy work. If Apple had Dell's volume, they could do it as well.
But they'd still have to account for integration testing, engineering issues in the PowerBooks et al, and the inevitable lag in the retail channel.
In other words, that strategy only works if you accept certain compromises in design and testing, and it works best if you don't have a retail channel.
Originally posted by Amorph
They also convince suppliers to move or build warehouses near Dell's plants to minimize logistical problems.
But what you omitted from your explanation is that it takes a fair amount of size and clout to make that strategy work. If Apple had Dell's volume, they could do it as well.
But they'd still have to account for integration testing, engineering issues in the PowerBooks et al, and the inevitable lag in the retail channel.
In other words, that strategy only works if you accept certain compromises in design and testing, and it works best if you don't have a retail channel.
You're right. But I think we shan't forget that Dell at one point was the low man on the totem pole in the PC industry, and they had to fight their way up to the top like everyone else does.
Granted they are using the PC hardware, etc. Don't misconstrue my statement as a for/against argument on Apple's update cycle. My statement was just to clarify how Dell does things differently than just about everyone else.
I still like you Amorph!
Regards!
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
As far as G5 graphics cards go, the top of the line computer should have the top of the line graphics card at all times. That is the easiest component to update in a tower. It does not need any fan fair, just quiet updates that keep it current. I don't expect miracles. I just want them to stay on top of the things they can control. Maybe they are. But it just seems like every few months, one or more of their products starts to look out of kilter. I was just thinking that there must be a way for them to keep that from happening.
That makes too much sense.
However, nice to see they haven't outdone my G5 2x2 over half a year after its introduction.
As a consumer, I wish Apple can simply lower their prices, even just a little bit during the life of their product cycles...somthing that reflects fairly the going price of the technology they are selling...
In the end Apple pricing is what concerns me the most...
my 2 pennies...
(this will never be addressed...I know that for sure)
Originally posted by speedfreak
Just buy a new one when you need it. If you need the power of a dual 2Ghz G5 buy one. If you just browse and do email get an iBook. If you can wait for the latest and greatest the wait and speculate all you want. Meanwhile I am happy with my Macs. I bought them for what I needed them to do and they do it well and probably will for another year or so. The I'll go to the store and get another. No fuss. Just go do it.
Ahh, a feel good post.
Originally posted by shabbasuraj
As a consumer, I wish Apple can simply lower their prices, even just a little bit during the life of their product cycles...somthing that reflects fairly the going price of the technology they are selling...
(this will never be addressed...I know that for sure)
Lowering prices during a life cycle would help clearing inventories, but on the other hand would no one pay the full price anymore, since you could get the same device cheaper just a few months later.
Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
Lowering prices during a life cycle would help clearing inventories, but on the other hand would no one pay the full price anymore, since you could get the same device cheaper just a few months later.
People that need it will buy it, for God's sake it is not always about price and deals.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
In PC land, give it six months and there will be offerings that are twice as fast with more features for less than you paid for your last one. Will future Macs see better update cycles with the introduction of better manufacturing process, or is it simply a marketing decision?
Intel announces 2.0 GHz processor: August 27, 2001
Intel announces 3.0 GHz processor: April 13, 2003
Apple announces 2.0 GHz processor: June 23, 2003
Apple announces 3.0 GHz processor: June 28, 2004 (Not yet, but we all know it will be)
Apple is getting back in the game, but this nonsense of x86 processors doubling so quickly is just that. It SEEMS like the ball is always rolling as they announce and ship just about every increase they possibly can as Intel and AMD vie for the speed crown, but the reality is much more realistic. The only tech that has really lagged behind over the past few years is RAM. But what does that matter since the G4 barely even uses DDR over plain old SDR. every other option has been readily available via PCI cards, much as it is in the PC world. Granted OEMs are quicker to implement some features, but where are the OEM FW 800 connections? Nowhere, only through PCI.
The iMac is looking like a weak and neglected product, but I expect that will change as this Digital Hub marketing strategy is pushed even more by "Office for the rest of your life" and the iPod/ITMS craze.
As for 6 months update schedules, i don't see how that is important with the G5 surely being pushed out to all products except eMac, and iBook by the end of the year. Once these things get out, there will be more than enough power to run.
With the G4, every bit of speed you could get mattered, but with G5, that is less important. If Apple releases 3 GHZ this year, 4 next year and 5 the year after, I think Apple will be way ahead of the PC curve as not only will the clock rate be zippity, but the 64 Bitness of it all will trounce PCs as the Apps/OS are released to support it. AMD sits at 2 and 2.2 GHz with their 64 bit chips, but how likely is 3.0 GHz before the end of the year with them? Not very.
Originally posted by Gigawire
Intel announces 2.0 GHz processor: August 27, 2001
Intel announces 3.0 GHz processor: April 13, 2003
.
You might want to check your notes on the second one. In December of 2002 The Pentium 4 3.06 GHz 533 bus was available. Last April could have been the intro of 3.0 Ghz on the 800 bus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4