well,sorry - i just wanted to point out that there'll never be a ibm-G3 with just a simd unit added and nothing more. they'll make a generation-switch next year. one of the resulting products will be the mentioned G3successor and the other is the 970. two cpus are ok i think. but the X1, X2 naming convention is a step backwards in my opinion. i like the G5/6 better or even something like G4-X/G5-X64 ? ... i don't know...
the only thing i really have on my wish list is that at least one of those two new cpus will be out in february ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like your suggestion of G4-X, G4+ or something like that for the G3 successor, and G5-X64, G5-64 or the likes of that for the 970 and follow-ons. I'm also glad to see I am not alone in thinking a G3 with Alti-Vec would be a waste of development resources.
edit: It just occurred to me that if IBM is doing a G3 successor, Apple may be dropping Motorola completely. If this is in the works, it will surely have SIMD for Apple, for all Mac models.
Name the CPUs what ever you want as long as they are truly X rated
That is that they support what OS X support, things like the vector unit and SMP. I do not care if they apply some Intel logic and call it Z47 to denote that it is a 64 CPU. (Remember 486DX CPU=bus speed, 486DX2 CPU 2X the bus speed and then the killer 486 DX4 denoting 3X the bus speed). The important thin is what the CPU does not if the name is nerdy or microbiotic!
1. Why won't multi-processor machines help here? Are we discussing REAL performance or only marketing issues (my 3GHz machine is faster than your 2.1GHz machine)?
2. I think that while the market to date has opted for CPU speed as a measure of value, who know when/why/how that might suddenly "flip". Could everyone wake up someday and find that it is "cooler" to have multiple processors ("I have 6. You only have 4! Loser.")?
3. Another issue Apple needs to address, regardless of CPU speed, etc. is risk. If an Apple purchase is perceived as risky, they'll go nowhere. I think they are TRYING to do this with the "switch" campaign. (NOTE: I think they would also admit that "adders" are probably more common that pure "switchers", but a sale is a sale, and "switch" sounds so much more cool than "add".) How else can they address this risk issue better? More publicly partnering w/IBM MIGHT help.
4. The OS X on Intel "ace in the hole". I predicted this some time ago (not here, mind you). I figured Apple HAD to have a "Plan B" if MS ever decided to "drop the bomb". Apple owes it to itself (well, its shareholders anyway) to have a "Plan B", and a "Plan C", etc. on matters such as this. It is unacceptable for company X to dicate what company Y does to the benefit of company X's shareholders but detriment of company Y's. Apple put itself in that position. But perhaps now there is a viable way out.
Finally, let me say this. I've said this before elsewhere. Some examples might be helpful (and more concise) here.
Sony.
Sony wasn't even in business 60 years ago! They certainly were not making the products they are today, nor considered somewhat of a leader in some products (TVs for example). American companies were kings of the hill (RCA, Zenith, etc.) in consumer electronics. The world has change. Just a bit. I bet even 15-20 years into Sony's life, few would have predicted their present success.
Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
30-40 years ago these guys were selling junk. Once again the American companies were king of the hill. The situation has changed. Just a bit.
My point? The world changes. It is true that companies in fact go out of business as well. This MAY be Apple's fate too. I am doubtful of this for several reasons. First, they continue to be a profitble and well run company. Second, they are also an innovative company. Third, they have sound skills in bringing digital hardware, software and people together in interesting ways. Forth, they have a loyal following of customers (and a handful of those who are envious but unwilling to take the risk...yet.)
I, for one, would almost prefer Apple to evolve into something more than simply a "computer company", or throw out the hardware and become a "software company". There is PLENTY of room in this world for a different kind of company. I would like to see Apple become the "digital products company for your life". Making MP3 players, digital camera, phones, iClocks, computers and software that makes it all sing in tune.
This is NOT an unreasonable or unprofitable strategy for Apple to pursue.
I know. I know. I got "off thread" here. Sorry about that. But with SO much debate on the next processor, etc. I just had to add my $0.02. CPU IS important. But is it the ONLY thing?
The computer market is not the car market, or the consumer electronics market.
Comparisons to other companies that made junk are of no relevance. There are two forces keeping Apple alive. Users who have invested time and money into Mac related products in the past ( the professional sector ) - this is Apples legacy support, exactly the same thing that has kept intel on the desktop.
And the internet. The arrival of the internet has provided a really important platform independant application, and Apple has been able to push into the home market with it.
The companies you are comparing to are more like the cheap PC clone makers. All those japanese cars worked, and ran on the road just like US cars, only they were cheap, and crap. Just like korean cars are today.
Apple's problem is that the car analogy doesnt hold. Te appropriate analogy for Apple is that of trains. Most people drive cars. But we think that trains are better. They are more efficient, faster, environmentally friendly. The flip side is you cant drive them on a street, you cant fill them up at a petrol station, and you cant have one of your own.
They are incompatible with everyone else, just like a Mac. They have made some inroads into specific markets, but the majority of the worlds users have cars, or bikes, or just walk.
The 750fx version of the G3 is quite fast: it can hold its own against single G4s with a faster bus when Altivec is not involved. With a faster FSB (faster MPX or RapidIO?), process shrink and G4/970 comparable VMX unit it could be quite interesting...
1. Why won't multi-processor machines help here? Are we discussing REAL performance or only marketing issues (my 3GHz machine is faster than your 2.1GHz machine)?
2. I think that while the market to date has opted for CPU speed as a measure of value, who know when/why/how that might suddenly "flip". Could everyone wake up someday and find that it is "cooler" to have multiple processors ("I have 6. You only have 4! Loser.")?
3. Another issue Apple needs to address, regardless of CPU speed, etc. is risk. If an Apple purchase is perceived as risky, they'll go nowhere. I think they are TRYING to do this with the "switch" campaign. (NOTE: I think they would also admit that "adders" are probably more common that pure "switchers", but a sale is a sale, and "switch" sounds so much more cool than "add".) How else can they address this risk issue better? More publicly partnering w/IBM MIGHT help.
4. The OS X on Intel "ace in the hole". I predicted this some time ago (not here, mind you). I figured Apple HAD to have a "Plan B" if MS ever decided to "drop the bomb". Apple owes it to itself (well, its shareholders anyway) to have a "Plan B", and a "Plan C", etc. on matters such as this. It is unacceptable for company X to dicate what company Y does to the benefit of company X's shareholders but detriment of company Y's. Apple put itself in that position. But perhaps now there is a viable way out.
Finally, let me say this. I've said this before elsewhere. Some examples might be helpful (and more concise) here.
Sony.
Sony wasn't even in business 60 years ago! They certainly were not making the products they are today, nor considered somewhat of a leader in some products (TVs for example). American companies were kings of the hill (RCA, Zenith, etc.) in consumer electronics. The world has change. Just a bit. I bet even 15-20 years into Sony's life, few would have predicted their present success.
Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
30-40 years ago these guys were selling junk. Once again the American companies were king of the hill. The situation has changed. Just a bit.
My point? The world changes. It is true that companies in fact go out of business as well. This MAY be Apple's fate too. I am doubtful of this for several reasons. First, they continue to be a profitble and well run company. Second, they are also an innovative company. Third, they have sound skills in bringing digital hardware, software and people together in interesting ways. Forth, they have a loyal following of customers (and a handful of those who are envious but unwilling to take the risk...yet.)
I, for one, would almost prefer Apple to evolve into something more than simply a "computer company", or throw out the hardware and become a "software company". There is PLENTY of room in this world for a different kind of company. I would like to see Apple become the "digital products company for your life". Making MP3 players, digital camera, phones, iClocks, computers and software that makes it all sing in tune.
This is NOT an unreasonable or unprofitable strategy for Apple to pursue.
I know. I know. I got "off thread" here. Sorry about that. But with SO much debate on the next processor, etc. I just had to add my $0.02. CPU IS important. But is it the ONLY thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
sony worked within well defined standards. you could watch all in the family on a sony or a zenith. no risk involved. the problem is not quality; it is compatibility.
i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot. apple has to create products that create new markets and uses, not slightly better alternatives. apple is not taking this route, and this is what made them succesful in the first place. there was no "its good enough" alternative to the macintosh in the 80s. i played with an xp box at the sony store last night, and it was pretty nice. not as nice as osx, but not terrible either. so why would anyone switch exactly?
<strong>The mac is not still dead yet. But i fear that we have to wait until the 970 to have something exciting coming from Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad you included the word "yet".
If we are to wait a while before any speed gains are realized, Apple might be wise to head off PC switchers by further aggressive pricing on it's products. No not Dell prices, but just more reasonable ones.
If we are to wait a while before any speed gains are realized, Apple might be wise to head off PC switchers by further aggressive pricing on it's products. No not Dell prices, but just more reasonable ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like cutting the price of the PowerMacs instead of raising them... sacrilege!!!!!
<strong>The computer market is not the car market, or the consumer electronics market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right.
[quote]<strong>Comparisons to other companies that made junk are of no relevance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are wrong. These are examples offered for the point of illustrating that companies can and DO come from nowhere (or from behind) to be leaders in their fields.
[quote]<strong>They are incompatible with everyone else, just like a Mac. They have made some inroads into specific markets, but the majority of the worlds users have cars, or bikes, or just walk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I use a Mac. I am not incompatible with everyone else. I am able to interact/integrate just fine.
<strong>i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are right about this.
[quote]<strong>
apple has to create products that create new markets and uses, not slightly better alternatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with this.
But the next question is this...can they do this anymore? If so, how? Secondly, is there a market for a niche player here? I suspect there is (and Apple's continued existence seems to prove that there is).
I think the compatibility issue is being addressed. Computers will nevere be a simple as cars making the "compatibility" always more complex. But it is still an issue even in that business (repair shops, parts, etc.)
What would Apple do to make a "compellingly different" option?
Could it be a set of digital devices centered around Apple software (and Apple computers) that change the way you work/live in new and interesting ways?
It doesn't even have to be invented at Apple, only a new and compelling technology APPLIED in a new way. Wireless (short-range) technology applied to telephones created cordless phones. This has (undoubtedly) changed peoples lives in subtle but important ways for example.
TIVO/ReplayTV is something that promises to do the same for television viewing habits.
I am trying to watch Apple and look not just at a few "trees" but instead to discern the "forest". Is there any method to their madness (i.e., some STRATEGY) or are they simply surviving?
I honestly don't KNOW> But I sense something more than what we see on the surface. Perhaps I am wrong.
One thing I know. I think it would be a sad/dark day for this business if Apple does go away.
NO ONE else is doing QUITE what Apple does (which amazes me by the way). Microsoft? Kinda sort in a pale imitation sorta way. Dell? Well, okay...next...Sun? Sony? Who?
<strong>...Most people drive cars. But we think that trains are better. They are more efficient, faster, environmentally friendly. The flip side is you cant drive them on a street, you cant fill them up at a petrol station, and you cant have one of your own.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"environmentally friendly"? You are kidding right? I guess you have never lived near a crossing where ever ten minutes a train horn blasts at the same DB as a jack-hammer, or a jet at 50 feet. Perhaps you just forgot about NOISE pollution!?
[[[A dual boot machine with AMD in the mix was also mentioned as a "along with standard IBM boxen" would be released side by side possibly. The reasoning was that corporations want this from Apple to switch over, but either way, that an ongoing up to date version of X for x86 was real. ]]]
What would it matter what processor was being used? Why should that even matter to corporate? I really don't think corporate cares what processors it's running on... And there are added benefits to PPC since they run more efficiently. Heat, power consumption etc... So it helps save in other areas as well. Besides, a lot of OS X is dependent on AltiVec (VMX). That isn't going to change anytime soon. So, unless these AMD processors are going to contain VMX/AltiVec, they'll be useless. Not to mention the added complexity, cost, heat et al. We've been over the OS X for x86 scenario countess times already.
zaz wrote:
[[[Long story short. The 970 will begin @ about 1.2 and scale from there. In that time frame Intel will need to start really pushing the Itanium. It currently stands in prototype form of 1Ghz. If they don't they are gonna be in a crunch. The P4 will not get bigger for ever. ]]]
Well, the Itanic isn't meant for the desktop at all. At least that's what I've read. Someone point me in the direction of an official article that states otherwise.
[[[NMR just posted a peek into IBM's future and the outlook is low-end and blade servers, using chips that will scale to 6GHz but run cooler than Intel's offerings. ]]]
Exactly! Good point. The same goes for AMDs offerings.
It really amazes me that people have failed to have seen this, or at least point it out.
The article mentions that the G4 is about to top out at 1.3GHz, hitting the second brick wall of its turbulent life.
Just look at the current PowerMac cases. The 970 isn't going to be here by MWSF (or around that) folks, unless you are living in a dream world. The PowerMacs will be using the G4 until about MWNY03 (03 is in NY, O4 is in Boston, right?)
Until then, it would seem highly logical (considering the new MDD cases, and the move to an all-dual line) that the next revision will include quad processors on the high end at 1.3GHz, probably dual 1.25GHz PowerMacs for the midrange, and dual 1GHz PowerMacs bringing up the rear.
What is left to be said, however, is whether there will be a new bus of any sort, otherwise the two extra processors might as well be space heaters.
Oh, and arn, are you the Admin from MacRumors.com forums, or someone else?
i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I too agree with this analysis. What Apple is trying to do, I believe, is offer unique compelling reasons to buy a Mac, rather than a Windows PC. The trouble is, these reasons don't last that long before Microsoft plays 'me too.' Apple also gets those for whom 'good enough' is not quite good enough.
Right now, I think Apple's biggest problem is keeping Mac users it already has. Look at what has been happening in the educational market. I see this in the home computing market too. Eighteen months ago, there were six of us, among those I know, who were Mac users. Today, there are three of us. The other three switched to Windows. All of these felt it was good enough, and they could not justify the price difference.
So while the upper echelon customers are important for getting people to switch to the Mac, Apple needs something in the 'good enough' department that is much cheaper, just to keep home users and schools from switching the wrong way. If people are in the 'good enough' group, Apple will likely never get them back. . . On a second thought, maybe they can. One switcher got hit with a really bad virus a few weeks ago. Enough negativity from a PC could change their mind.
Apple's problem is that the car analogy doesnt hold. Te appropriate analogy for Apple is that of trains. Most people drive cars. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would have agreed with you more pre Mac OS X.
The piece of "The Car Analogy" that always 'broke' it historically is that of developer support & standards, exactly as you said. If Macs were ever such a small fraction of the 'car' market that the roads don't even allow one on... (or the gas is different, or it is really a train, whatever) -> Apple toast.
But with Mac OS X, the unix underpinnings are a HUGE piece of the puzzle, regardless of whether we actually directly interact with any of it. How far will Mac OS X marketshare have to fall before MySQL stops running on a Mac? How far will it have to fall before gcc is gone? It is as if x86 runs on gas, and Mac OS X runs on diesel. It doesn't matter WHAT the Mac OS X marketshare is - there will always be diesel. (The trucks & trains need it after all).
Yes, there are key developers that can influence things - Quark is apparently too stupid to Carbonize. Bye Quark. But the niches Apple is in are basically self-sustaining from just the apps Apple themselves puts out + tools from various unix flavors. And Apple's been staking out some turf in a pretty power hungry market - film.
Cocoa is starting to hit its stride as well. Back in the dark days of Apple circa 1996, it was the DISMAL days for NeXt. What was their marketshare? And here's Omni running a profitable company where three guys are making a reasonable (if not amazing) web browser? For NeXt?
But now we're back to reasonably cool apps coming out of one man shops. Repackaged unix apps with a nice GUI for a lot of them, sure. But there's a lot more where those came from
Currently there's a fair amount of dabbling going on by the pure unix types (witness the number of Mac laptops at unix conventions). A high powered PowerMac might really entice that niche of people. A closer alliance with IBM would cement it.
[[[A dual boot machine with AMD in the mix was also mentioned as a "along with standard IBM boxen" would be released side by side possibly. The reasoning was that corporations want this from Apple to switch over, but either way, that an ongoing up to date version of X for x86 was real. ]]]
What would it matter what processor was being used? Why should that even matter to corporate? I really don't think corporate cares what processors it's running on... And there are added benefits to PPC since they run more efficiently. Heat, power consumption etc... So it helps save in other areas as well. Besides, a lot of OS X is dependent on AltiVec (VMX). That isn't going to change anytime soon. So, unless these AMD processors are going to contain VMX/AltiVec, they'll be useless. Not to mention the added complexity, cost, heat et al. We've been over the OS X for x86 scenario countess times already.
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just relaying what i was told. As it went, Apple has spoken to companies that said they won't switch unless they could dual boot or somehow run X and Windows. I'm not rehashing anything, just relaying some info. So just relax. I thought it would be a move to x86, but was told no, it might be a side by side move to have the IBM and the dual boot AMD boxes. No need to argue, it's just what I was told.
"environmentally friendly"? You are kidding right? I guess you have never lived near a crossing where ever ten minutes a train horn blasts at the same DB as a jack-hammer, or a jet at 50 feet. Perhaps you just forgot about NOISE pollution!?
you ain't kidding. lived in a trailer park in Nevada next to the train track, like I was ridin a train every mornin' starting at 05:00 AM. Right where they were powering up, *cough, choke* Environmentally friendly alright.
Very interesting thread, some very well thought out arguments. A few comments of my own...
First, a couple people have talked about licensing "just the server version." OSX Server is OSX with more tacked on. It is not a separate OS. You can run any OSX app on an OSX server machine. (I've got three of them).
Second, related to that though, is that I too have been pondering the limited-license approach to IBM. I really believe what another poster said about PR with IBM. Remember that MS grew because coporate types knew "no on was ever fired for buying IBM." Apple teaming up with IBM is very cool on many different levels. Obviously the technology of new and better chips, but of real credibility in the one (biggest) market Apple has always had problems with. IBM is making huge investments in Linux, which means huge investments in UNIX. Which means software is very portable to OSX. I don't think IBM has any interest in the consumer market. If I were Steve, I would license all of OSX to IBM for coporate sales. It could only help in my book.
Lastly, in regards to Marklar and OSX on x86 I have this take. If you really think long term, like twenty years, what will the software biz look like?
I happen to believe that the open source movement (and btw that is not just linux) will really have taken hold. OS software will be a free commodity for the average consumer. Does anyone know or care what OS their watch, VCR, microwave, car, or TiVo runs on? Companies will make their profits by providing the best services, integration, and user interface. Sounds like a company we know? We see this in its most infant stage right now with .Net and .Mac among others. The web was just the first stage, and the internet is so much more than web pages. Technologies like XML, SOAP, and other open standards will allow internet services way beyond what we see today.
Watson is a perfect example of the rise of services versus the web. All of the information Watson provides, I can get on my own on the web. But I use and pay for Watson because it is simple, fast, and (mostly) reliable. It also has an open framework that allows third parties to write plug ins. To summarize, a web services application utilizing open standards that eliminates the need for the browser and perhaps the OS.
MS knows this, go read the leaked FTP docs at the register. Apple knows this, and the .Mac services are just the begining. I agree that for what they are offering, the .Mac price is steep. I am lucky that it doesn't matter to me, and I love my .Mac account. I use iDisk all the time to transfer small files to the office and back. I also keep some frequently referenced docs that I need, and current projects. Yeah its a little slow and flaky at times, but conceptually it is so cool. I use iPhoto to handle family pics, use iTunes and an iPod all the time in my car, gym, and vacations, and I use iMovie for family events. For the first time in my life it is easy to syncronize my calendars, contact lists, bookmarks, and just about anything else across all of my machines.
Once again I may not be like you in that I have four Macs that I use on a regular basis. But in the future everyone will have lots of digital devices talking to each other, and Apple is laying the groundwork for a killer system to handle all of these devices.
Finally, at the recent O'Reilly OSX conference I had a fascinating chat with a pretty big shot at Apple. After his session, I spoke with him to make sure what I was infering from his presentation was correct. He told me my thoughts were right on the money, and actually complemented me by saying he was surprised I had made the connection, no one else at his talks had. (nothing like nice words from an Apple guy with a PhD to give your ego a little boost)
Basically, don't underestimate the potential of Rendezvous. Apple has open sourced this, and it is being adopted very quickly. In his words, it "will get the Internet back to what it was originally intended to be."
I know I am being vague, but I got the sense that he would rather this not be discussed too much at this point in time. Sorry, I know thats lame, but he was very cool with me.
I continue to believe that Apple's best days are ahead, both in the near future and the long term.
Actually a friend of mineis doing just that. He does use sharing software to get the latest music - but he also always then goes and buy the CD. Why? Because he can not bother to leave the PC on all the time and he can't take his mp3 collection to work and not fit it into the CD player of his car. And he likes buying CDs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He's just stuck because he can't play his mp3s in the car, so he has to buy the media that fits.
Comments
<strong>
well,sorry - i just wanted to point out that there'll never be a ibm-G3 with just a simd unit added and nothing more. they'll make a generation-switch next year. one of the resulting products will be the mentioned G3successor and the other is the 970. two cpus are ok i think. but the X1, X2 naming convention is a step backwards in my opinion. i like the G5/6 better or even something like G4-X/G5-X64 ? ... i don't know...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like your suggestion of G4-X, G4+ or something like that for the G3 successor, and G5-X64, G5-64 or the likes of that for the 970 and follow-ons. I'm also glad to see I am not alone in thinking a G3 with Alti-Vec would be a waste of development resources.
edit: It just occurred to me that if IBM is doing a G3 successor, Apple may be dropping Motorola completely. If this is in the works, it will surely have SIMD for Apple, for all Mac models.
[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
That is that they support what OS X support, things like the vector unit and SMP. I do not care if they apply some Intel logic and call it Z47 to denote that it is a 64 CPU. (Remember 486DX CPU=bus speed, 486DX2 CPU 2X the bus speed and then the killer 486 DX4 denoting 3X the bus speed). The important thin is what the CPU does not if the name is nerdy or microbiotic!
1. Why won't multi-processor machines help here? Are we discussing REAL performance or only marketing issues (my 3GHz machine is faster than your 2.1GHz machine)?
2. I think that while the market to date has opted for CPU speed as a measure of value, who know when/why/how that might suddenly "flip". Could everyone wake up someday and find that it is "cooler" to have multiple processors ("I have 6. You only have 4! Loser.")?
3. Another issue Apple needs to address, regardless of CPU speed, etc. is risk. If an Apple purchase is perceived as risky, they'll go nowhere. I think they are TRYING to do this with the "switch" campaign. (NOTE: I think they would also admit that "adders" are probably more common that pure "switchers", but a sale is a sale, and "switch" sounds so much more cool than "add".) How else can they address this risk issue better? More publicly partnering w/IBM MIGHT help.
4. The OS X on Intel "ace in the hole". I predicted this some time ago (not here, mind you). I figured Apple HAD to have a "Plan B" if MS ever decided to "drop the bomb". Apple owes it to itself (well, its shareholders anyway) to have a "Plan B", and a "Plan C", etc. on matters such as this. It is unacceptable for company X to dicate what company Y does to the benefit of company X's shareholders but detriment of company Y's. Apple put itself in that position. But perhaps now there is a viable way out.
Finally, let me say this. I've said this before elsewhere. Some examples might be helpful (and more concise) here.
Sony.
Sony wasn't even in business 60 years ago! They certainly were not making the products they are today, nor considered somewhat of a leader in some products (TVs for example). American companies were kings of the hill (RCA, Zenith, etc.) in consumer electronics. The world has change. Just a bit. I bet even 15-20 years into Sony's life, few would have predicted their present success.
Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
30-40 years ago these guys were selling junk. Once again the American companies were king of the hill. The situation has changed. Just a bit.
My point? The world changes. It is true that companies in fact go out of business as well. This MAY be Apple's fate too. I am doubtful of this for several reasons. First, they continue to be a profitble and well run company. Second, they are also an innovative company. Third, they have sound skills in bringing digital hardware, software and people together in interesting ways. Forth, they have a loyal following of customers (and a handful of those who are envious but unwilling to take the risk...yet.)
I, for one, would almost prefer Apple to evolve into something more than simply a "computer company", or throw out the hardware and become a "software company". There is PLENTY of room in this world for a different kind of company. I would like to see Apple become the "digital products company for your life". Making MP3 players, digital camera, phones, iClocks, computers and software that makes it all sing in tune.
This is NOT an unreasonable or unprofitable strategy for Apple to pursue.
I know. I know. I got "off thread" here. Sorry about that. But with SO much debate on the next processor, etc. I just had to add my $0.02. CPU IS important. But is it the ONLY thing?
Comparisons to other companies that made junk are of no relevance. There are two forces keeping Apple alive. Users who have invested time and money into Mac related products in the past ( the professional sector ) - this is Apples legacy support, exactly the same thing that has kept intel on the desktop.
And the internet. The arrival of the internet has provided a really important platform independant application, and Apple has been able to push into the home market with it.
The companies you are comparing to are more like the cheap PC clone makers. All those japanese cars worked, and ran on the road just like US cars, only they were cheap, and crap. Just like korean cars are today.
Apple's problem is that the car analogy doesnt hold. Te appropriate analogy for Apple is that of trains. Most people drive cars. But we think that trains are better. They are more efficient, faster, environmentally friendly. The flip side is you cant drive them on a street, you cant fill them up at a petrol station, and you cant have one of your own.
They are incompatible with everyone else, just like a Mac. They have made some inroads into specific markets, but the majority of the worlds users have cars, or bikes, or just walk.
<strong>Couple of thoughts on all of this...
1. Why won't multi-processor machines help here? Are we discussing REAL performance or only marketing issues (my 3GHz machine is faster than your 2.1GHz machine)?
2. I think that while the market to date has opted for CPU speed as a measure of value, who know when/why/how that might suddenly "flip". Could everyone wake up someday and find that it is "cooler" to have multiple processors ("I have 6. You only have 4! Loser.")?
3. Another issue Apple needs to address, regardless of CPU speed, etc. is risk. If an Apple purchase is perceived as risky, they'll go nowhere. I think they are TRYING to do this with the "switch" campaign. (NOTE: I think they would also admit that "adders" are probably more common that pure "switchers", but a sale is a sale, and "switch" sounds so much more cool than "add".) How else can they address this risk issue better? More publicly partnering w/IBM MIGHT help.
4. The OS X on Intel "ace in the hole". I predicted this some time ago (not here, mind you). I figured Apple HAD to have a "Plan B" if MS ever decided to "drop the bomb". Apple owes it to itself (well, its shareholders anyway) to have a "Plan B", and a "Plan C", etc. on matters such as this. It is unacceptable for company X to dicate what company Y does to the benefit of company X's shareholders but detriment of company Y's. Apple put itself in that position. But perhaps now there is a viable way out.
Finally, let me say this. I've said this before elsewhere. Some examples might be helpful (and more concise) here.
Sony.
Sony wasn't even in business 60 years ago! They certainly were not making the products they are today, nor considered somewhat of a leader in some products (TVs for example). American companies were kings of the hill (RCA, Zenith, etc.) in consumer electronics. The world has change. Just a bit. I bet even 15-20 years into Sony's life, few would have predicted their present success.
Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
30-40 years ago these guys were selling junk. Once again the American companies were king of the hill. The situation has changed. Just a bit.
My point? The world changes. It is true that companies in fact go out of business as well. This MAY be Apple's fate too. I am doubtful of this for several reasons. First, they continue to be a profitble and well run company. Second, they are also an innovative company. Third, they have sound skills in bringing digital hardware, software and people together in interesting ways. Forth, they have a loyal following of customers (and a handful of those who are envious but unwilling to take the risk...yet.)
I, for one, would almost prefer Apple to evolve into something more than simply a "computer company", or throw out the hardware and become a "software company". There is PLENTY of room in this world for a different kind of company. I would like to see Apple become the "digital products company for your life". Making MP3 players, digital camera, phones, iClocks, computers and software that makes it all sing in tune.
This is NOT an unreasonable or unprofitable strategy for Apple to pursue.
I know. I know. I got "off thread" here. Sorry about that. But with SO much debate on the next processor, etc. I just had to add my $0.02. CPU IS important. But is it the ONLY thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
sony worked within well defined standards. you could watch all in the family on a sony or a zenith. no risk involved. the problem is not quality; it is compatibility.
i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot. apple has to create products that create new markets and uses, not slightly better alternatives. apple is not taking this route, and this is what made them succesful in the first place. there was no "its good enough" alternative to the macintosh in the 80s. i played with an xp box at the sony store last night, and it was pretty nice. not as nice as osx, but not terrible either. so why would anyone switch exactly?
<strong>The mac is not still dead yet. But i fear that we have to wait until the 970 to have something exciting coming from Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad you included the word "yet".
If we are to wait a while before any speed gains are realized, Apple might be wise to head off PC switchers by further aggressive pricing on it's products. No not Dell prices, but just more reasonable ones.
<strong>
I'm glad you included the word "yet".
If we are to wait a while before any speed gains are realized, Apple might be wise to head off PC switchers by further aggressive pricing on it's products. No not Dell prices, but just more reasonable ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like cutting the price of the PowerMacs instead of raising them... sacrilege!!!!!
<strong>The computer market is not the car market, or the consumer electronics market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right.
[quote]<strong>Comparisons to other companies that made junk are of no relevance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are wrong. These are examples offered for the point of illustrating that companies can and DO come from nowhere (or from behind) to be leaders in their fields.
[quote]<strong>They are incompatible with everyone else, just like a Mac. They have made some inroads into specific markets, but the majority of the worlds users have cars, or bikes, or just walk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I use a Mac. I am not incompatible with everyone else. I am able to interact/integrate just fine.
<strong>i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are right about this.
[quote]<strong>
apple has to create products that create new markets and uses, not slightly better alternatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with this.
But the next question is this...can they do this anymore? If so, how? Secondly, is there a market for a niche player here? I suspect there is (and Apple's continued existence seems to prove that there is).
I think the compatibility issue is being addressed. Computers will nevere be a simple as cars making the "compatibility" always more complex. But it is still an issue even in that business (repair shops, parts, etc.)
What would Apple do to make a "compellingly different" option?
Could it be a set of digital devices centered around Apple software (and Apple computers) that change the way you work/live in new and interesting ways?
It doesn't even have to be invented at Apple, only a new and compelling technology APPLIED in a new way. Wireless (short-range) technology applied to telephones created cordless phones. This has (undoubtedly) changed peoples lives in subtle but important ways for example.
TIVO/ReplayTV is something that promises to do the same for television viewing habits.
I am trying to watch Apple and look not just at a few "trees" but instead to discern the "forest". Is there any method to their madness (i.e., some STRATEGY) or are they simply surviving?
I honestly don't KNOW> But I sense something more than what we see on the surface. Perhaps I am wrong.
One thing I know. I think it would be a sad/dark day for this business if Apple does go away.
NO ONE else is doing QUITE what Apple does (which amazes me by the way). Microsoft? Kinda sort in a pale imitation sorta way. Dell? Well, okay...next...Sun? Sony? Who?
<strong>...Most people drive cars. But we think that trains are better. They are more efficient, faster, environmentally friendly. The flip side is you cant drive them on a street, you cant fill them up at a petrol station, and you cant have one of your own.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"environmentally friendly"? You are kidding right? I guess you have never lived near a crossing where ever ten minutes a train horn blasts at the same DB as a jack-hammer, or a jet at 50 feet. Perhaps you just forgot about NOISE pollution!?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: Merlion ]</p>
[[[A dual boot machine with AMD in the mix was also mentioned as a "along with standard IBM boxen" would be released side by side possibly. The reasoning was that corporations want this from Apple to switch over, but either way, that an ongoing up to date version of X for x86 was real. ]]]
What would it matter what processor was being used? Why should that even matter to corporate? I really don't think corporate cares what processors it's running on... And there are added benefits to PPC since they run more efficiently. Heat, power consumption etc... So it helps save in other areas as well. Besides, a lot of OS X is dependent on AltiVec (VMX). That isn't going to change anytime soon. So, unless these AMD processors are going to contain VMX/AltiVec, they'll be useless. Not to mention the added complexity, cost, heat et al. We've been over the OS X for x86 scenario countess times already.
zaz wrote:
[[[Long story short. The 970 will begin @ about 1.2 and scale from there. In that time frame Intel will need to start really pushing the Itanium. It currently stands in prototype form of 1Ghz. If they don't they are gonna be in a crunch. The P4 will not get bigger for ever. ]]]
Well, the Itanic isn't meant for the desktop at all. At least that's what I've read. Someone point me in the direction of an official article that states otherwise.
[[[NMR just posted a peek into IBM's future and the outlook is low-end and blade servers, using chips that will scale to 6GHz but run cooler than Intel's offerings. ]]]
Exactly! Good point. The same goes for AMDs offerings.
--
Ed M.
The article mentions that the G4 is about to top out at 1.3GHz, hitting the second brick wall of its turbulent life.
Just look at the current PowerMac cases. The 970 isn't going to be here by MWSF (or around that) folks, unless you are living in a dream world. The PowerMacs will be using the G4 until about MWNY03 (03 is in NY, O4 is in Boston, right?)
Until then, it would seem highly logical (considering the new MDD cases, and the move to an all-dual line) that the next revision will include quad processors on the high end at 1.3GHz, probably dual 1.25GHz PowerMacs for the midrange, and dual 1GHz PowerMacs bringing up the rear.
What is left to be said, however, is whether there will be a new bus of any sort, otherwise the two extra processors might as well be space heaters.
Oh, and arn, are you the Admin from MacRumors.com forums, or someone else?
Good to see you here.
<strong>
i think apple's biggest problem has always been the "it's good enough for me" factor. windows isn't dominant because its better, but because it is easily good enough for most people and cheaper to boot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I too agree with this analysis. What Apple is trying to do, I believe, is offer unique compelling reasons to buy a Mac, rather than a Windows PC. The trouble is, these reasons don't last that long before Microsoft plays 'me too.' Apple also gets those for whom 'good enough' is not quite good enough.
Right now, I think Apple's biggest problem is keeping Mac users it already has. Look at what has been happening in the educational market. I see this in the home computing market too. Eighteen months ago, there were six of us, among those I know, who were Mac users. Today, there are three of us. The other three switched to Windows. All of these felt it was good enough, and they could not justify the price difference.
So while the upper echelon customers are important for getting people to switch to the Mac, Apple needs something in the 'good enough' department that is much cheaper, just to keep home users and schools from switching the wrong way. If people are in the 'good enough' group, Apple will likely never get them back. . . On a second thought, maybe they can. One switcher got hit with a really bad virus a few weeks ago. Enough negativity from a PC could change their mind.
<strong>
Apple's problem is that the car analogy doesnt hold. Te appropriate analogy for Apple is that of trains. Most people drive cars. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would have agreed with you more pre Mac OS X.
The piece of "The Car Analogy" that always 'broke' it historically is that of developer support & standards, exactly as you said. If Macs were ever such a small fraction of the 'car' market that the roads don't even allow one on... (or the gas is different, or it is really a train, whatever) -> Apple toast.
But with Mac OS X, the unix underpinnings are a HUGE piece of the puzzle, regardless of whether we actually directly interact with any of it. How far will Mac OS X marketshare have to fall before MySQL stops running on a Mac? How far will it have to fall before gcc is gone? It is as if x86 runs on gas, and Mac OS X runs on diesel. It doesn't matter WHAT the Mac OS X marketshare is - there will always be diesel. (The trucks & trains need it after all).
Yes, there are key developers that can influence things - Quark is apparently too stupid to Carbonize. Bye Quark. But the niches Apple is in are basically self-sustaining from just the apps Apple themselves puts out + tools from various unix flavors. And Apple's been staking out some turf in a pretty power hungry market - film.
Cocoa is starting to hit its stride as well. Back in the dark days of Apple circa 1996, it was the DISMAL days for NeXt. What was their marketshare? And here's Omni running a profitable company where three guys are making a reasonable (if not amazing) web browser? For NeXt?
But now we're back to reasonably cool apps coming out of one man shops. Repackaged unix apps with a nice GUI for a lot of them, sure. But there's a lot more where those came from
Currently there's a fair amount of dabbling going on by the pure unix types (witness the number of Mac laptops at unix conventions). A high powered PowerMac might really entice that niche of people. A closer alliance with IBM would cement it.
<strong>KidRed wrote:
[[[A dual boot machine with AMD in the mix was also mentioned as a "along with standard IBM boxen" would be released side by side possibly. The reasoning was that corporations want this from Apple to switch over, but either way, that an ongoing up to date version of X for x86 was real. ]]]
What would it matter what processor was being used? Why should that even matter to corporate? I really don't think corporate cares what processors it's running on... And there are added benefits to PPC since they run more efficiently. Heat, power consumption etc... So it helps save in other areas as well. Besides, a lot of OS X is dependent on AltiVec (VMX). That isn't going to change anytime soon. So, unless these AMD processors are going to contain VMX/AltiVec, they'll be useless. Not to mention the added complexity, cost, heat et al. We've been over the OS X for x86 scenario countess times already.
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just relaying what i was told. As it went, Apple has spoken to companies that said they won't switch unless they could dual boot or somehow run X and Windows. I'm not rehashing anything, just relaying some info. So just relax. I thought it would be a move to x86, but was told no, it might be a side by side move to have the IBM and the dual boot AMD boxes. No need to argue, it's just what I was told.
<strong>
"environmentally friendly"? You are kidding right? I guess you have never lived near a crossing where ever ten minutes a train horn blasts at the same DB as a jack-hammer, or a jet at 50 feet. Perhaps you just forgot about NOISE pollution!?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: Merlion ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
you ain't kidding. lived in a trailer park in Nevada next to the train track, like I was ridin a train every mornin' starting at 05:00 AM. Right where they were powering up, *cough, choke* Environmentally friendly alright.
First, a couple people have talked about licensing "just the server version." OSX Server is OSX with more tacked on. It is not a separate OS. You can run any OSX app on an OSX server machine. (I've got three of them).
Second, related to that though, is that I too have been pondering the limited-license approach to IBM. I really believe what another poster said about PR with IBM. Remember that MS grew because coporate types knew "no on was ever fired for buying IBM." Apple teaming up with IBM is very cool on many different levels. Obviously the technology of new and better chips, but of real credibility in the one (biggest) market Apple has always had problems with. IBM is making huge investments in Linux, which means huge investments in UNIX. Which means software is very portable to OSX. I don't think IBM has any interest in the consumer market. If I were Steve, I would license all of OSX to IBM for coporate sales. It could only help in my book.
Lastly, in regards to Marklar and OSX on x86 I have this take. If you really think long term, like twenty years, what will the software biz look like?
I happen to believe that the open source movement (and btw that is not just linux) will really have taken hold. OS software will be a free commodity for the average consumer. Does anyone know or care what OS their watch, VCR, microwave, car, or TiVo runs on? Companies will make their profits by providing the best services, integration, and user interface. Sounds like a company we know? We see this in its most infant stage right now with .Net and .Mac among others. The web was just the first stage, and the internet is so much more than web pages. Technologies like XML, SOAP, and other open standards will allow internet services way beyond what we see today.
Watson is a perfect example of the rise of services versus the web. All of the information Watson provides, I can get on my own on the web. But I use and pay for Watson because it is simple, fast, and (mostly) reliable. It also has an open framework that allows third parties to write plug ins. To summarize, a web services application utilizing open standards that eliminates the need for the browser and perhaps the OS.
MS knows this, go read the leaked FTP docs at the register. Apple knows this, and the .Mac services are just the begining. I agree that for what they are offering, the .Mac price is steep. I am lucky that it doesn't matter to me, and I love my .Mac account. I use iDisk all the time to transfer small files to the office and back. I also keep some frequently referenced docs that I need, and current projects. Yeah its a little slow and flaky at times, but conceptually it is so cool. I use iPhoto to handle family pics, use iTunes and an iPod all the time in my car, gym, and vacations, and I use iMovie for family events. For the first time in my life it is easy to syncronize my calendars, contact lists, bookmarks, and just about anything else across all of my machines.
Once again I may not be like you in that I have four Macs that I use on a regular basis. But in the future everyone will have lots of digital devices talking to each other, and Apple is laying the groundwork for a killer system to handle all of these devices.
Finally, at the recent O'Reilly OSX conference I had a fascinating chat with a pretty big shot at Apple. After his session, I spoke with him to make sure what I was infering from his presentation was correct. He told me my thoughts were right on the money, and actually complemented me by saying he was surprised I had made the connection, no one else at his talks had. (nothing like nice words from an Apple guy with a PhD to give your ego a little boost)
Basically, don't underestimate the potential of Rendezvous. Apple has open sourced this, and it is being adopted very quickly. In his words, it "will get the Internet back to what it was originally intended to be."
I know I am being vague, but I got the sense that he would rather this not be discussed too much at this point in time. Sorry, I know thats lame, but he was very cool with me.
I continue to believe that Apple's best days are ahead, both in the near future and the long term.
<strong>
Actually a friend of mineis doing just that. He does use sharing software to get the latest music - but he also always then goes and buy the CD. Why? Because he can not bother to leave the PC on all the time and he can't take his mp3 collection to work and not fit it into the CD player of his car. And he likes buying CDs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He's just stuck because he can't play his mp3s in the car, so he has to buy the media that fits.
<strong>
He's just stuck because he can't play his mp3s in the car, so he has to buy the media that fits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, he has a minidisc player he can record to and use that in his car stereo. He could use mp3 if he really wanted, but he likes getting CD.
Of course it might be that _you_ know better about him than I do. Yeah, that will be it.