Apple's upgrade stradegy...?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I think we have all noticed that apple is not a company to upgrade their products much. Every now and then they come out with a substantial upgrade, for example the iMac G4 from the iMac G3. But this is not very often.

\t

\tThe new iBooks are rumored only to have a 100Mhz speed bump and 200$ price cuts after 6 months. The Tibooks won't be much better, maybe 800 and 933 or something. The towers have finally gotten DDR, well sort of, and a 250mhz bump in 6 months time. The iMac G4, besides the addition of the 17 incher, has not gotten any upgrades in almost a year now.



\tWe all have heard of the IBM PPC 970 and the motorola MPC7457 which will keep us going through next year. And, yes the IBM chip is supposed to be very good.



\tBut my question to you all is: Will apple continue to do little upgrades every 6 months on through next year. Remember even though the 970 is will be faster than the P4 apples consumer line up will still have the G4, which by then will behind the P4 even with the MPC7457 coming out. Can apple really hope to regain market share with upgrades like the ones we have been getting? Can steve really be naive enough to think what he is doing now is going to work? I keep thinking that there must be a ketch and that soon enough something really good is going to show up that will allow them to actually have big upgrades etc every 6 months. But nothing ever comes... The 970 is a good 9 months away and will not look so great by the time it gets here. And what is apple going to do until then? Sorry to be so pessimistic but has anyone really believe that apple can be competitive again?



\tI hear all sorts of good stuff from friends etc who claim good stuff is coming etc, but I'm sure they are over exaggerating.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    Please contrast the image you paint of Apple with another company [PC OEM] and show that someone else has a history of releasing substancial upgrades more often.



    Please note that I am stipulating a history of doing so and that you note substancial upgrades.
  • Reply 2 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bogie:

    <strong>Please contrast the image you paint of Apple with another company [PC OEM] and show that someone else has a history of releasing substancial upgrades more often.



    Please note that I am stipulating a history of doing so and that you note substancial upgrades.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So you are going to argue that I have no proof that apple updates less that PC companies do? LOL how about 2.4Ghz v. 1.25Ghz, RAMBUS and DDR v. our half DDR that we didn't get until the PC side had had it for quite a while. Is that good for starters?
  • Reply 3 of 40
    Apparently, the 970 will be a quantum leap in performance despite the low mHz rating compared to Intel. Also, there have been a few hints that the 970 is just the tip of the iceberg- as even more dramatic chip developments from IBM will surface.



    Maybe the whole sequencing is akin to the 601 and the 604 with the 970 being equivelant to the 601. The 601 was the first salvo at Wintel and a transition chip then the 604e blew them away. The funny thing was that 601 machines kept getting faster because Apple kept releasing OS updates that were further and further tuned to PPC.



    It seems the same thing is happening now...the chips are slowly getting faster as is the OS and when combined they add-up to pretty decent speed improvements. IMO the same thing will continue- every six months a chip increase and an OS update but each is staggered 3 months from the other.



    I do think that once IBM gets in the game we will see the Pro machines updated every 3-5 months with faster chips. It just seems that IBM has designed a chip to run fast and they have done so in a very delibertae attempt to squash Intel and AMD's 64 bit offerings. IBM means business.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    powerpcpowerpc Posts: 109member
    you must remember that the 7457 can have a 200Mhz MPX bus. And later on, it will have Rapidio.



    Which will be bring it up to par with other PC equivalents.



    Perhaps this is what Motorola wants? A back seat partner in the AIM alliance. IBM with the pro stuff and Moto with the consumer stuff?



    dunno.....
  • Reply 5 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    [quote]Originally posted by Algol:

    <strong>



    So you are going to argue that I have no proof that apple updates less that PC companies do? LOL how about 2.4Ghz v. 1.25Ghz, RAMBUS and DDR v. our half DDR that we didn't get until the PC side had had it for quite a while. Is that good for starters?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, I am going to ask my question again. Please state a PC OEM [one company, that makes Windows PCs, examples would be Gateway, Dell, Acer, etc ...] that updates their products substancially [major overhauls not just speed bumps or minor feature additions, as that is the criteria you stated in your opening post] and show that their history [an on going schedule of past release dates of these substancial upgrades] that demonstrate the company you choose updates more often than Apple.



    Your statements above about processor speed and RAM are not about PC OEMs but about Intel, AMD, and other parts manufacturers. If you want to talk about them then this thread should be comparing them to Apple's suppliers such as IBM, Motorola, Samsung, etc ...



    But please answer my question, its honest and straight forward.
  • Reply 6 of 40
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Your question is neither honest nor straightforward. No major PC vendor **needs** to do substantial upgrades more often, they do plenty of minor updates VERY often. Dell's configs change practically every week (as an extreme case). Apple has gotten itself into a bad hole where they need BOTH substatial upgrades and they need to make them more often.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    Matsu,



    First, yeah it is an honest question. Algol is saying Apple doesn't do substancial upgrades often enough, I want to know who does, and I want him to post evidence of that in the form of product updates on some sort of timeline.



    How is that not straigh forward? He says Apple doesn't meet his criteria and I want to know who does. I am neither defending Apple nor bashing PC makers, I just want to talk about this concretely.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    Poll: What would you rather have?

    Big updates every 9-12 months

    Updates like this every 5-6 months
  • Reply 9 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    Nebrie,



    I think people need a mix, we can't realistically expect that any company, Apple included, will always be light-years ahead of dozens of compeditors in every one of dozens of categories.



    We would all prefer major updates really quickly, one right after another, that is until it happened. Then we would complain that we were being ripped off because in a couple months they will come out with new ones.



    So, to be a realist, I would expect a mix.
  • Reply 10 of 40
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Apple likes to complain about the buy-wait cycle. People have mentioned avoiding Expo roll-outs as part of the solution. But how long before consumers adjust to that pattern aswell? For one to 3 months after a product debut, people will buy it and not worry about updates comming the day after they plunk down some cash, but after that? Doesn't matter if you release product at expos or not, we know how long something has been around and won't pay full price when we expect something better.



    You can only break the buy-wait cycle by creating a dis-incentive to wait, basically, by updating often, even if minimally. Unlike the PC side, Apple has to supply updates in much more consistent fashion. As a PC consumer, if Dell doesn't have a P4 3Ghz ready this month, chances are IBM of HP will, the incremental update is there, just not from Dell, but either way, I don't have to wait. As it stands now, PC manufacturers are much better (even individually) at making quick incremental adjustments.



    I know Apple is partially hamstrung by the PPC, but theres no reason not to take advantage of the quick progress in storage, RAM, optical, and graphics.



    Take any model, we'll use an iBook:



    The 7500 is basically a drop in replacement for the Radeon M. 12X combo units can be found, larger HDD's are plentiful, RAM is dirt cheap.



    Imagine taking the Base HDD to 30GB, putting in a 32MB video, bumping the soldered RAM to a 256MB piece, and perhaps a faster optical. All simple upgrades. Today, after waiting months for them, it doesn't seem like much, but months ago it would have helped the iBook keep up with it's PC competition, and it would have been seen as much more substantial. Keep the pace, every 3 months upgrade "something" on at least 2-3 different products, and you get a steady stream of buyers. You may be waiting for more base RAM, someone else may be waiting for better video, another for a price drop. Maybe a CPU update only comes twice a year, but you catch more people by offering features when they become available rather than sticking with the same config for 6-12 months at a time.
  • Reply 11 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Apple likes to complain about the buy-wait cycle. People have mentioned avoiding Expo roll-outs as part of the solution. But how long before consumers adjust to that pattern aswell? For one to 3 months after a product debut, people will buy it and not worry about updates comming the day after they plunk down some cash, but after that? Doesn't matter if you release product at expos or not, we know how long something has been around and won't pay full price when we expect something better.



    You can only break the buy-wait cycle by creating a dis-incentive to wait, basically, by updating often, even if minimally. Unlike the PC side, Apple has to supply updates in much more consistent fashion. As a PC consumer, if Dell doesn't have a P4 3Ghz ready this month, chances are IBM of HP will, the incremental update is there, just not from Dell, but either way, I don't have to wait. As it stands now, PC manufacturers are much better (even individually) at making quick incremental adjustments.



    I know Apple is partially hamstrung by the PPC, but theres no reason not to take advantage of the quick progress in storage, RAM, optical, and graphics.



    Take any model, we'll use an iBook:



    The 7500 is basically a drop in replacement for the Radeon M. 12X combo units can be found, larger HDD's are plentiful, RAM is dirt cheap.



    Imagine taking the Base HDD to 30GB, putting in a 32MB video, bumping the soldered RAM to a 256MB piece, and perhaps a faster optical. All simple upgrades. Today, after waiting months for them, it doesn't seem like much, but months ago it would have helped the iBook keep up with it's PC competition, and it would have been seen as much more substantial. Keep the pace, every 3 months upgrade "something" on at least 2-3 different products, and you get a steady stream of buyers. You may be waiting for more base RAM, someone else may be waiting for better video, another for a price drop. Maybe a CPU update only comes twice a year, but you catch more people by offering features when they become available rather than sticking with the same config for 6-12 months at a time.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is what worries me about apple. They always wait to long to upgrade things like GPU's etc. When they finally do upgrade their machines they only catch up. They never actually come out ahead. They need to upgrade stuff before the PC side does. They need to be on top sometimes. Note sometimes, not always.



    \tThe way they currently upgrade their products creates many months in which they are out of date and don't fit in with the other lines. Like the 667mhz PowerBook with a 2500$ price tag. Come on who in their right mind would pay that much for such an outdated machine.



    \tBogie your "question" has nothing to do with my point. It is a well known fact that apple is behind the competition. Yes their PowerMacs may not be behind but they cost a fortune, and the rest of apples lineup is obviously behind similar priced computers on the PC side. We all know that apple is behind and the way they got behind is not upgrading enough, for there is no other way to get behind. So don't order me to post examples of PC companies that upgrade more often or bigger than apple. If you would find this info useful go and post it your self.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    [quote] Poll: What would you rather have?

    Big updates every 9-12 months

    Updates like this every 5-6 months <hr></blockquote>



    Its more like:

    Big... eh...well... upgrades every 3-4 years

    Design upgrades every 6-12 month.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    jante99jante99 Posts: 539member
    The update Apple is planning for on Wedensday is substancial. 200 dollar price drop on ibook with a 100 mzh speed increase with larger hard drives and possibly more video ram. Thiese changes should make the ibook competitive with PC labtops for the holiday season. OS X is also reciecing substancial updates way faster then Windows is updated. How often has microsoft completly updated Windows every 6 months?
  • Reply 14 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    Also bogie, as matsu pointed out, your question is neither honest or straight forward. You cannot compare apple to one PC company. You have to compare apple against all of the PC world. That includes intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Etc., etc., etc. Apple must compete against all of these companies, therefore, they must upgrade enough to stay competitive with all of them. I would suggest apple go with little upgrades whenever needed, but without warning or further ado. Then every 6-9 months do a big upgrade, not huge but big. Then every 2 years or so they should do a case redesign and add substantial motherboard improvements etc.



    \tApple currently releases a new upgrade ever 6-9 months or so that looks appealing. Then they go on to upgrade their other products. After a few months the first upgraded no longer looks like a good deal. Apple does not bother to keep that product up to date with small improvements, but rather waits until no one will buy it then they bring it up to date. This upgrade strategy makes it look as if half of Apple's lineup is behind the other half. it also makes certain lines look way behind the competition, more so than is reality.



    \tWho doesn't agree that apple could use a better upgrade strategy? And what other ideas do you guys have on the subject.



    [ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: Algol ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 40
    I agree Apple, should work on their upgrade strategy. They are a victim of their own creation. The Apple following(us) is too educated on the whole to just go out and buy a Mac any old day because we feel like it. We know when a new one is coming out, thanks to sites like this, within a month or two, and MANY of the Mac faithful wait until the new one is released. There is NO way that with the rumor frenzy Apple creates and the slow and predictable upgrade practice that they can get out of the cycle of high and low demand leading up tp and following a new release. The only way is to release small incremental upgrades more often that prevent people from being afraid of getting bent over by buying a Mac only to have it be replaced a week later by something much better. I would not care if a small change was made a month or two after I buy a computer, but I would care if it is seriously revised (Apple's practice) a month later.



    Whether or not Apple can take the extra R&D expense of developing revisions for such small volume is another question. I bet we are stuck with Apple's current strategies for a while
  • Reply 16 of 40
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    So do I, but that also means that they're stuck with our buying patterns. Better then to use the Expos and milk them for all the exposure they can get.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]you must remember that the 7457 can have a 200Mhz MPX bus. And later on, it will have Rapidio.

    Which will be bring it up to par with other PC equivalents.<hr></blockquote>



    A 200MHz MPX bus is not significantly better than a 167MHz one (and not really near Q1 2003 PC stuff in terms of bandwidth) but a RapidIO G4 could nicely compliment the 970.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    Interesting discussion but I don't think Apple can update its line if they can't get faster processors with a FSB that supports DDR. They trickle technology down to the iMac lines and iBooks from the PowerMac and TiBook. When Apple has a faster successor to the G4, the G4 will be ramped up in the iMac and probably added to the iBook. I'm not too concerned about ATA133 v. ATAT100 since most drives can't move data that fast.



    As far as more frequent upgrades, I remember the Mac IIvx and IIvi. Boy did people get pissed when they only lasted 3 months or so. Apple's done this a couple of times and got grief for it. D*mned if you do, D*mned if you don't.



    In my (and most Mac users) heart of hearts, I want a processor that kicks the sh!t out of a P4 (or atleast matches). Would I want it to be an X86 chip?. Even if it is from Intel?



    [ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by Bogie:

    <strong>...Algol is saying Apple doesn't do substancial upgrades often enough, I want to know who does, and I want him to post evidence of that in the form of product updates on some sort of timeline.



    How is that not straigh forward? He says Apple doesn't meet his criteria and I want to know who does. I am neither defending Apple nor bashing PC makers, I just want to talk about this concretely.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    As one of the posts pointed out, look at Dell. While they don't do major upgrades, they have almost no stock in hand, thus is able to release minor upgrades as soon as faster CPU hits the channel. Sure, I would be a little unhappy to know that in a month's time, my current machine can be had for a few hundread dollars less, but that's just how technology works.



    The biggest problem plaguing Apple is Motorola. They charge ridiculous prices for those G4 chips while not able to keep them up-to-par with Intel. Looking at AMD, in a year, their market almost halfed (from 20% to 11%) due to inability to ship chips that they announced (aka paper launch). Moto is much worse than AMD, thus an even smaller market share, simple as that. It's really unreasonable to expect Apple to put faster chips in their machines every other month when Moto can't even produce enough of what they claim to be avilable....oh well, IBM is a lot more competent, so my G4/450 will have to last 'til 2nd revision of Power4 in the Mac First generation hardware (mobo) in combination with a spanking new chip, no matter how much testing, will always have a lot of problems...(Maybe I'll give the 1GHz Sonnet a try)
  • Reply 20 of 40
    Bravo!! CodeWarrior and Evangellydonut. My thinking exactly.



    [quote]Originally posted by CodeWarrior:

    <strong>Interesting discussion but I don't think Apple can update its line if they can't get faster processors with a FSB that supports DDR. They trickle technology down to the iMac lines and iBooks from the PowerMac and TiBook. When Apple has a faster successor to the G4, the G4 will be ramped up in the iMac and probably added to the iBook. I'm not too concerned about ATA133 v. ATAT100 since most drives can't move data that fast.



    As far as more frequent upgrades, I remember the Mac IIvx and IIvi. Boy did people get pissed when they only lasted 3 months or so. Apple's done this a couple of times and got grief for it. D*mned if you do, D*mned if you don't.



    In my (and most Mac users) heart of hearts, I want a processor that kicks the sh!t out of a P4 (or atleast matches). Would I want it to be an X86 chip?. Even if it is from Intel?



    [ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Granted, Apple has done some things to "shoot themselves in the foot". But the blame cannot be "pinned" on Apple alone. The PPC processor (ie Moto) determines alot of what goes into the motherboard. If the CPU can't handle DDR, then why add it ... until other things can use it as well (look at the XServe) and the DDR price goes down (which Apple did coincidentally). Not to acuse Moto, but it sure seems as if their incompetence was more generated, than inate. They knew they had Apple by the "short hairs" and "milked it", because they knew it would takearound 3 years for Apple to come up with a different CPU source. And now Moto wants to sell off their semi-conductor division ... how quaint.



    Apple's Upgrade Strategy ... Get Moto into a supplier position that won't hurt them anymore, and you're here to see the beginning of it!



    Edit: Spelling



    [ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.