2003: When Business Picks Up Again

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
This is likely a short-lived thread, but it's Future Hardware fer-shure.



THINK SECRET reports that the firings of some of Apple's Executive Development Team has been attributed to slow sales and slow growth which is not expected to change until the middle of next year.



This times out with the discussion of wholly new pro machines running new chipsets midway into 2003.



Did this deserve its own thread? Not sure, but I've been on vacation and haven't had time to post a lot...so THERE!







Drew
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    No competitive product = no sales



    It's just that simple



    If Apple is going to hold off any product Apple will keep having losses in the next 10 quarters



    [ 10-23-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 34
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    Many potential buyers are delaying purchses till the direction apple gives it clear: using motorola or IBM, G4 or G5,



    Until some directions are given, sales will be slowwwww. lets hope the path will be clearer in 2003



    And prices lower too. No matter what some may say, the high prices can only attract the hard core users... its difficult to get switchers to the casual mac users to buy
  • Reply 3 of 34
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    [quote]Originally posted by stunned:

    <strong>Many potential buyers are delaying purchses till the direction apple gives it clear: using motorola or IBM, G4 or G5,



    Until some directions are given, sales will be slowwwww. lets hope the path will be clearer in 2003



    And prices lower too. No matter what some may say, the high prices can only attract the hard core users... its difficult to get switchers to the casual mac users to buy</strong><hr></blockquote>



    First off, Apple isn't the only one claiming 2003 will be gloomy. Almost every tech company has come out and said the same thing. This is not unique to Apple.



    Second, everyone is waiting till 2003.



    Third, Apple is a business. If it makes $100 on something, then cuts the price by $50, but sales don't double, they're actually worse off, so price cuts don't always work.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    [quote]Originally posted by stunned:

    <strong>Many potential buyers are delaying purchses till the direction apple gives it clear: using motorola or IBM, G4 or G5,



    Until some directions are given, sales will be slowwwww.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why does ANYONE care who builds the CPU in Apple's machines? Frankly I do not. All I care about is whether or not the product helps me to get my work done in a productive fashion.



    I am interested in Apple's product direction only as a "hobby" as a "curiosity" (well I own stock too, but...)



    Do customers REALLY care? I doubt it. This board (and the others like it) are NOT likely a fair representation of Apple's typical customer.



    This obsession/fetish with chips is not normal. Who really cares. I want to get WORK done, and to the extent that a faster chip helps, so be it.
  • Reply 5 of 34
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>



    Why does ANYONE care who builds the CPU in Apple's machines? Frankly I do not. All I care about is whether or not the product helps me to get my work done in a productive fashion.



    I am interested in Apple's product direction only as a "hobby" as a "curiosity" (well I own stock too, but...)



    Do customers REALLY care? I doubt it. This board (and the others like it) are NOT likely a fair representation of Apple's typical customer.



    This obsession/fetish with chips is not normal. Who really cares. I want to get WORK done, and to the extent that a faster chip helps, so be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    sounds like you want a PC.....if you don't care about the ppc processor, than any x86 should do just dandy....I hear there are some good OS X mock skins for windows, maybe you could get one of those for a cheapo 700 dollar box.

    you should be able to work just fine....unless there is something specific about what work you do.

    just a suggestion
  • Reply 6 of 34
    [quote]Originally posted by Wrong Robust:

    <strong>sounds like you want a PC.....if you don't care about the ppc processor, than any x86 should do just dandy....I hear there are some good OS X mock skins for windows, maybe you could get one of those for a cheapo 700 dollar box.

    you should be able to work just fine....unless there is something specific about what work you do.

    just a suggestion</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I am confused.



    What did I say that even suggested I would want to use a Wintel box? I "switched" long ago (once OS X started looking real enough for me). Furthermore, I didn't say thing one about price being an issue.



    If price and raw CPU performance were my major concerns I would buy a Wintel box. But I don't equate these two metrics with "getting work done" any more than I equate cost and raw HP with "getting me to/from work each day".



    My point (if you read carefully) is that I don't understand the obsession over processor details that everyone seems to fret over, and why it is that Apple must show their CPU strategy to get customers to buy something. Apple is not selling CPUs. Apple is selling a tool for getting work done. This debate about CPUs is like arguing about the brand of fuel injectiion system in my car. Who cares? I want to get work done. My current Mac (w/Jaguar) does this quite well for me. I suspect the same is true for most people.
  • Reply 7 of 34
    I don't see how it is Apple's Executive Developments fault that Moto. is not coming up with any new hardware. Lets say the devel. team did come out with some new pb, ibook, i[insertwhatever] it would still have the same 'ol tired hardware that we have been looking at for some time. I don't know anyone that would rush out and buy a new designed pb with the same guts. This must have been a part of the development team that should have been working on a new device that is not computer related. My guess is phone/camera/video. But thats just my .02.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>



    Why does ANYONE care who builds the CPU in Apple's machines? Frankly I do not. All I care about is whether or not the product helps me to get my work done in a productive fashion.



    I am interested in Apple's product direction only as a "hobby" as a "curiosity" (well I own stock too, but...)



    Do customers REALLY care? I doubt it. This board (and the others like it) are NOT likely a fair representation of Apple's typical customer.



    This obsession/fetish with chips is not normal. Who really cares. I want to get WORK done, and to the extent that a faster chip helps, so be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Becouse this shows the direction ("...we like options... " ) is going, and potential momentium that Apple will be able to achieve Steve's stated goal of doubling market share. More market share = more money for Apple and a more stable company. This also equates to more software ported to the platform, becouse developers have a larger market for the Mac software.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by trailmaster308:

    <strong>I don't see how it is Apple's Executive Developments fault that Moto. is not coming up with any new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Mot is not singlehandedly holding Apple back. While some people here look enviously at the P4 scaling up MHz-wise, the PC market stagnates. Why? Because nobody cares if a new PC is 3GHz instead of 1.8GHz if it doesn't buy them anything in terms of real use. For most people, it doesn't.



    Apple can win a lot more converts with the sort of things that people here consider peripheral - bluetooth support, iApps, general ease of use - than with fast CPUs, because people buy computers for their ability to do things. The more things a computer allows them to do - in practical, not theoretical, terms - the more appealing it is. Most people never even come close to taxing the raw computational power of a 3 year old system, so usability comes from software, from industrial design, from ease of use. Also, security, privacy, lack of DRM and similar strategies, non-sucky licensing, and UNIX are big wins in the current climate.



    There are, of course, people who do tax their systems, and for some of them the Mac system architecture is lacking in one way or another. But this is not nearly as big a deal as some people here make it out to be, or the iBook wouldn't be one of Apple's biggest hits.



    Right now Apple has much better press and much more favorable attention - especially in PC strongholds - than they got when the 604e and the G3 were performance kings. They're selling into the same weak economy that everyone else is, and they have to account for that. The reported layoffs are unfortunate, but Apple's executive team is sharp, they have much more information than any of us do, and if they say they're just trying to hold on until mid-2003, that's probably what they're actually doing. They certainly aren't alone in adopting that strategy.



    [ 10-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 34
    [quote]Originally posted by trailmaster308:

    <strong>I don't see how it is Apple's Executive Developments fault that Moto. is not coming up with any new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    It's not Apple's fault that Motorola can't figure out how to fab a competitive desktop CPU for Macs. However, it IS Apple's fault for not having made the appropriate plans for using an alternative CPU sooner. Powermacs should already be shipping with the next generation CPU, and it is entirely Apple's fault that we must wait yet another year for a competitive CPU.



    Apple's executives should have know much sooner that Motorola was impotent, and they should have done something about it sooner. That's the truth of the situation. Without know the particulars, it's difficult to say who at Apple is at fault. Maybe the hardware engineers at Apple didn't see through Moto's bullsh!t as soon as they should have, and thus Apple's execs didn't have the information they needed to take appropriate actions.
  • Reply 11 of 34
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    NObody is waiting for the economy to pick up, not in the computer industry. We're not talking about some discrete new technologies here like a new TV system or blue laser discs or some such where a timed roll-out could help synchronize dev/production costs with immediate (and high sales revenue) We're talking computer systems. Waiting makes no sense, if you can't sell a 1.8Ghz PPC970 in a weak economy, then you certainly can't sell a 1.25Ghz G4 in the very same economy. Stale product is a killer in the computer world. If it isn't shipping, it's because it isn't ready yet, there is no other reason.
  • Reply 12 of 34
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Huh, funny how this thread went all wonky.



    All I was pointing out was that a statement in regard to Apple's future sales expectations seemed to confirm that there'd be new hardware in 2003. Since there is no way that Apple can predict a general demand for computer systems 9 months in advance, that statement is the most telling indicator of new hardware...and since it IS about 9 months until mid 2003, I think we can all utter a unanimous "No Shit Sherlock!" in regards to the fact that there'll be new hardware.



    That's all.
  • Reply 13 of 34
    CPU performance is an important variable, and it's simply naive to deny that fact. When it is stated that the most important thing is what a machine helps you get done, there is a lot of truth to that. Yet, you really have to understand the current perspective of Apple's target market in order to know why everyone is processor conscious.



    Every serious Apple devotee knows that the G4 processor failed. We initially had high hopes, buoyed by Apple insistence that the G4 was a supercomputer chip. But when the P4 quickly eclipsed us in MHz and then in performance, the realization set in that the G4 wasn't competitive. Apple resorted to the MHz Myth, which, while true to a certain extent, became rather vapid defensive rhetoric in response to the performance gulf separating the G4 from Intel and AMD.



    Today we know the 970 is coming, which has far reaching, significant implications for our platform. As a simple exercise, look at the SPECmarks for the 970, and compare them to the G4. The difference is pretty startling, and it belies the true lack of speed of the G4. (Motorola doesn't even give its official G4 SPECmarks, since the performance of the chip is so abysmal.)



    In essence, we're looking forward to a major leap in performance for the Mac platform. Speed certainly isn't everything, but if you wish to be stuck with years old, stagnant G4 technology that will be put to shame by IBM's part, then that's your prerogative. Most people have a finite amount of financial liquidity, though, and don't wish to see their investment become utterly antiquated in a year or less. That's why the processor question is so pivotal at this stage of the game.
  • Reply 14 of 34
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nebrie:

    <strong>



    First off, Apple isn't the only one claiming 2003 will be gloomy. Almost every tech company has come out and said the same thing. This is not unique to Apple.



    Second, everyone is waiting till 2003.



    Third, Apple is a business. If it makes $100 on something, then cuts the price by $50, but sales don't double, they're actually worse off, so price cuts don't always work.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Face it, apple prices are too expensive. If the price cuts are eating too deep into Apple's margins, they better cut costs. If PC makers can achieve significantly lower costs, it only means they are more cost efficient and are sure to eat into Apple's sales



    Granted that Apple has great software, but its hardware is not exactly more advanced or more durable than most PC makers. And software alone is not sufficient to attract switchers, especially at high prices!



    Its prices are too high and is not contibuting to their cause. their last quarter profits is testimonial to that.



    I hope 2003 will be a better year in terms of product offering and more competitive prices
  • Reply 15 of 34
    [quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:

    <strong>but if you wish to be stuck with years old, stagnant G4 technology that will be put to shame by IBM's part, then that's your prerogative. Most people have a finite amount of financial liquidity, though, and don't wish to see their investment become utterly antiquated in a year or less.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But wait a second. This brings the discussion back to my original point. Why should I care if my computer contains 1 year old (or 10 year old) technology that is "put to shame" by anyone, as long as it is continuing to meet my needs?



    This is essentially my point. The "put to shame by statement" gets into a keeping up with the Jones' kind of issue. Perhaps I might be jealous, but at the end of the day if the machine I currently own does everything I need it to do (which I contend is true for many people), then who cares if my neighbor has a faster machine?



    When it comes time to upgrade, because my machine is no longer completely meeting my needs, then performance will be one issue, but only secondary to whether or not the device does what I need ti to do. Processor performance is only ONE contributing factor to this question.



    Maybe this is only me. Frankly I really don't care what is inside this box. (I DO have a curiosity as an engineer and techno-geek, but that's about it.) What matters to me is what I can get done, at what price, and how efficiently. To me this is sorta like being concerned about which embedded process is inside of my microwave oven. Who cares if it makes my popcorn correctly?



    [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Chris Cuilla ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 34
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:

    <strong>CPU performance is an important variable, and it's simply naive to deny that fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Then how come faster Pentiums are being greeted with yawns?



    CPUs are now fast enough to do just about everything that anyone needs to do. That's been true for a year or so now. There are exceptions, but they're exceptions.



    Also, nobody does work on the CPU. There are a lot of things between the user and the CPU, and those matter as well. It is significant, for example, that OS X multitasks and multithreads efficiently and scales well, while Windows XP is inefficient and scales poorly. Also, since most people barely tax the CPU at all, it's not hard to make a case that interface concerns (hardware and software) are more important. Does it matter more that a PC can render MPEG video faster, or that a Mac gives me a program that allows me (not a video person) to assemble a movie in the first place?



    [quote]<strong>When it is stated that the most important thing is what a machine helps you get done, there is a lot of truth to that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Absolutely. But the machine is a whole heck of a lot more than the CPU! On identical hardware, Mac OS X is letting me get a lot more done than Mac OS 9 ever did. When I was running Mac OS 8.6 on an 8600, adding 128MB of RAM, a USB card, and a RAGE 128 PCI gave it a whole new lease on life, even though the CPU was still chugging along at 200MHz.



    [quote]<strong>Every serious Apple devotee knows that the G4 processor failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I note the word "serious," which has the marvelous effect of making the statement impossible to falsify, because anyone who disagrees is obviously not serious.



    Lovely.



    What did the G4 fail at? Can you imagine a P4 in a PowerBook? Is the dual 1.25GHz not a fast, fluid machine, or the dual 867 not a good buy at the price? No, it's not designed for performance at all costs - so, astonishingly, it's not quite as fast as those processors that are. Yes, one model (the 7400) had a cache bug (shared by the G3) that stalled it at 500MHz. Sure, Leonis really could make use of something that turned in significantly better double precision FP performance. But it's not a failure.



    [quote]<strong>We initially had high hopes, buoyed by Apple insistence that the G4 was a supercomputer chip. But when the P4 quickly eclipsed us in MHz and then in performance, the realization set in that the G4 wasn't competitive. Apple resorted to the MHz Myth, which, while true to a certain extent, became rather vapid defensive rhetoric in response to the performance gulf separating the G4 from Intel and AMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Meanwhile, both Mac users and switchers bought iBooks in droves, and iMacs and eMacs continue to sell well.



    [quote]<strong>Today we know the 970 is coming, which has far reaching, significant implications for our platform. As a simple exercise, look at the SPECmarks for the 970, and compare them to the G4. The difference is pretty startling, and it belies the true lack of speed of the G4. (Motorola doesn't even give its official G4 SPECmarks, since the performance of the chip is so abysmal.)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The performance of the G4 at SPEC is abysmal, not least because SPEC moots or ignores all of its strengths, and exaggerates its weaknesses - so why should Motorola draw attention to a benchmark designed around a completely different and incompatible set of assumptions than their designers used? What does that tell anyone? In actual use, the "gulf" of performance between the G4 and the P4 is nowhere near what the SPECmarks imply.



    [quote]<strong>Speed certainly isn't everything, but if you wish to be stuck with years old, stagnant G4 technology that will be put to shame by IBM's part, then that's your prerogative.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If the 450MHz G4 I'm currently "stuck with" continues to do everything I need it to do when the 970 comes out, why on Earth should I replace it? I bought this computer to work for me, after all, and I see no reason to replace it as long as it continues to do so.



    If I buy another computer, it will probably be around or after the time that the 970 debuts. It will almost certainly be a portable to enhance rather than replace my Cube. Unless the 970 starts out in iBooks, I probably will be "stuck with" another G4. If it does what I want it to do, and runs the applications I need it to run, what should it - or I - be ashamed of?



    I'm not even sure what I'd do with a dual 1.8GHz 970 PowerMac. It's not like I need BBEdit to run faster.



    [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 34
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>



    But wait a second. This brings the discussion back to my original point. Why should I care if my computer contains 1 year old (or 10 year old) technology that is "put to shame" by anyone, as long as it is continuing to meet my needs?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Using the over done car analogy, some here are in the racing or hot rod class, so it is important to them. Others like me, are mechanics, who find technical details interesting. Most of the people who buy Macs don't care about such details, like you say, but then most don't visit this discussion group either. Your input helps to balance this discussion.
  • Reply 18 of 34
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    If the 450MHz G4 I'm currently "stuck with" continues to do everything I need it to do when the 970 comes out, why on Earth should I replace it? I bought this computer to work for me, after all, and I see no reason to replace it as long as it continues to do so.



    &lt;snip&gt;



    I'm not even sure what I'd do with a dual 1.8GHz 970 PowerMac. It's not like I need BBEdit to run faster.



    [ 10-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think a lot of people are suddenly realizing this. Software has been driving hardware almost since the start of the PC revolution - there was always some "way-cool" technology on the horizon that was waiting for hardware with enough horsepower to come along and make it practical. I just don't see anything like that at the moment, something that would make me go ga-ga and get all dreamy about how cool it would be when I had a computer powerful enough to run it. Right now, I don't see a good reason to buy a computer even 10x faster than what I've currently got.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    Look, I appreciate the mature responses many of you provided, but your assertions are surely not realistic. If you wish to contend that you would be satisfied with purchasing today's woefully overpriced, underpowered Power Macs even though something much better is on the way; if you have no appreciation for the price to performance ratio, then happily purchase away. It would certainly help me as a stock holder! But all of the possible rationalizations brought up here aren't going to change the issues. You're free to disagree with me, of course, but I have confidence in my opinion.



    [ 10-25-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 34
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:

    <strong>Look, I appreciate the mature responses many of you provided, but your assertions are surely not realistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's not realistic to appraise computers based on whether they can do what you need them to do? Or on factors other than sheer number-crunching ability?



    [quote]<strong>If you wish to contend that you would be satisfied with purchasing today's woefully overpriced, underpowered Power Macs even though something much better is on the way; if you have no appreciation for the price to performance ratio, then happily purchase away.]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    1) Something better is always on the way, so you buy what you need when you need it. Unless something better is coming out in the next two weeks;



    2) I appreciate your lack of confidence in my ability to assess price/performance, but I appraise "performance" on many more levels than raw CPU power. A great processor trapped in a crap motherboard in a large, flimsy case is of no use to me. Especially if it's also loud. By the time you've spec'd a PC up to a PowerMac, the price difference isn't that bad. And a dual 867 screams, sub-GHz CPU clock speed notwithstanding. In real terms, it's more power than I have any need for in a gorgeous case (design, construction, and layout-wise) with far more expandability than I will ever use and a lot of nice touches at a decent price. The main reason I wouldn't buy one, actually, is that I will cheerfully trade raw power for quiet operation. Raw CPU power just isn't that important for what I need a computer to do. Not with CPUs as powerful as they now are.



    And BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with what the PC world has to offer. I'm typing this on a late model Dell OptiPlex at work.



    [ 10-25-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.