I'm curious: where in Sunnyvale did you attend your meetings? I've lived in Sunnyvale for 12 years and have never seen an Apple office of any sort here. Since you've attended more than one meeting at Apple's Sunnyvale offices, can you tell me where they're located?
BTW, did you know that the U.S. Ducati distributor is only a short distance from the "other" Apple offices (but not in Sunnyvale, either). Popular bikes here in the valley.
I really don't see what the problems with the specs are...other than the video card (which falls in the required specs to run CoreImage/Video and Quartz 2D Extreme when Tiger is out), the specs are impressive.
5.1 digital sound...right in time for QT7 and OpenAL. People have been wanting this forever but Macs just didn't have enough software or core elements to fully take advantage of multichannel sound.
The iMac would be Tiger-ready. And Tiger is going to be frickin' awesome. Sure, Doom 3 won't run like a champ but neither do the $999 PCs.
...I don't want every Tom,Dick and Harry on the platform. Mac users should be the cream. That's why Apple likely doesn't want gamers. Gamers produce nothing but silly framerates and flamewars, the fiends ...
Well I'm glad that you are not running Apple, and I'm sure most stock holders aren't either. If you remember the original marketing campaign, the original iMac was designed with every Tom, Dick, and Harry and so were most of the iApps. As a professional Designer I would never think to use any of them in my professional life. iPhoto is fine for my wife, but I much prefer Photoshop even for the most rutine tasks. If I need a database for images give me something with some muscle Cumulus. Text editing, it's either Word or BBEdit. The iMac (3 plugs and your on the internet right?) iApps were designed with the sole purpose of adding value and attracting every day users to the Mac platform, not the professionals that were already using them.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
...$1300 wasn't that much more expensive in 2000 than it is today. It's the expectations that are different. Just as many people can afford the the iMac coming as those that purchased the first iMac.
That depends on the market and product that you are looking at. In the case of pharmasuticals, higher education, health care, and fuel the prices have risen much faster than the rate of inflation. If you look at DVD players the prices have dropped much faster than the rate of enflation. The fact is that in the technology markets, even of over the past 4 years the price of products tends to drop over time even as the specs go up because the technology to make them improves making them less expensive to manufacture while producing larger yields of usable product. This has not been the case in the processors that the Mac uses, and as a result it has not been the case with Mac so the prices have gone up while the performance lagged behind that of the rest of the industry. Let's hope that this trend is soon reversed, though with IBM's problems with the 970's so far this year it doesn't look like it is going to happen soon enough.
Wouldn't you agree that all new macs coming out from him on out should be able to fully support tiger's exciting feature set? How would you feel if Apple showed software to developers that the entire mac community knows that your mac isnt' going to support. If Apple is planning this in advance wouldn't they also plan the computer to hve a graphics card that would take full advantage of new software to be released? Does this not seem logical? I'd feel really left out and uncared for...
Well I'm glad that you are not running Apple, and I'm sure most stock holders aren't either.
Apple and the stockholders care about making a profit not placating the whimsical needs of spec whores. Bottom line Apple offers Macs from $799 on up. You don't like that..look elsewhere. Actions speak louder than words and Apple is yelling right now.
Come on guys. Are we ever going to lean on AI??? We've heard it all.
"Apple's gone bezerk...a music player for $500???".
"The iPod Mini is going to fail. Who would buy a 4GB $249 player when for $50 they get a 15GB iPod"
I think the people that we need to stop listening to are the chicken little on these boards screaming about price. The iPod clearly shows price is not always the mitigating factor
Here's how I feel about the iMac coming.
Yes it could have a faster GPU and CPU but this is a first generation of a new design. I'd take it pretty conservative if I was Apple. You got people pissed because Apple doesn't have a 2Ghz G5 or a ATI 9600 in the unit. They don't even know the thermal characteristics of the case. Overheating doesn't do you any good. Let Apple take it slow.
Also keep in mind that 2004 is a transition to PCI Express and new GPUs. I expect Apple to "catch up" with the next refresh.
hmurch probably wouldnt be good at running Apple, but he knows what the hell he's talking about. He KNOWS Apple, through and through, and as many people here complain that Apple doesnt have a huge market share "like they should," they are still a massively successful company-a tech giant.
Some people here could really use a visit to the optician, so that they can see the forest for the trees.
I bought a $500 iPod, I could have bought a $300 rioplayer. The iPod had better specs, if you compare it to the other options out there it doesn't look so expensive.
A premium is fine for a premium product. (Seems to be what Apple's profit potential has always been)
I don't think this iMac is going to fit into it's schemes.
I bought a $500 iPod, I could have bought a $300 rioplayer. The iPod had better specs, if you compare it to the other options out there it doesn't look so expensive.
A premium is fine for a premium product. (Seems to be what Apple's profit potential has always been)
I don't think this iMac is going to fit into it's schemes.
The iMac is going to have a G5, it will have a massive LCD screen, it will have a FAST bus speed, it will have bluetooth and airport networking, it will be capable of running OS X with ease.
Apple and the stockholders care about making a profit not placating the whimsical needs of spec whores. Bottom line Apple offers Macs from $799 on up. You don't like that..look elsewhere. Actions speak louder than words and Apple is yelling right now. ...
First off how many more units (Computers, not iPods) is Apple selling today than they were 4 years ago? What percentage has that part of their business grown? How does that compare to the growth in the computer industry as a whole? How much more would Apple's stock and business be worth today if they grew as much as the rest of the industry?
Apple does make a $799 computer, but they aren't really marketing it to the general public. Sure the Mac market knows about it, but when was the last eMac commercial on network TV? What magazines outside of Mac publications have you seen a print add for it? From what I have seen they are not trying very hard to sell these computers. The bottom line is that Apple has not really tried to market this computer as a consumer computer, probably for many reasons including not wanting to dilute the brand identity of the iMac so that when they are able to market it as a serious contender in the consumer market again they can.
Apple has been making some noise on the software front, with their OS, music apps, and professional apps. They have even made some promising news and gained some respect with the G5 computers. I don't think that this can be denied. I think that they have fallen short in their efforts with their consumer desktop computers. I think that it is too soon to predict how the new iMac will be recieved, but my feeling is that if the prices and specs are right in the TS article that they will be recieved about as well and have the same market performance curve that the G4 iMac did.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Also keep in mind that 2004 is a transition to PCI Express and new GPUs. I expect Apple to "catch up" with the next refresh.
If Apple's track record in adopting new technology that they have not developed holds true I wouldnn't expect to see PCI Express untill 2006, especially in their consumer models since a new design will have just been released.
hmurchison, I respect your knowldge and your zeal for the Mac platform. However I think that it, as well as your apparent eletism, are blinding you to the real possabilities for the Mac platform. No not all the problems were created by Apple, most of them were limits of the hardware that they adopted. Others are and were compromises to make their computers more profitable. However, if they were able to make and sell significantly more computers then the resulting increase in volume should bring a cut in cost of production and allow for more profit and possibly a reduction in price of their entire line. You know if the market share of the Mac platform increases everyone who owns a Mac wins through the potential for more software ported over to the platform, probably with faster release dates and at a lower cost. The same holds true with third party hardware. A larger market share, and larger install base means that the potential market for these items is larger so the R & D costs can be spread out over a larger consumer base.
Do I have a history of predicting product successes? Probably more than most of you. I had the balls, in the face of Alex Salkever of business week (who said the iPod mini would flop, to say that the iPod mini would be a smashing success. Most people on these forums just unloaded their disatisifcation about the pricing and how it $249 was such a huge mistake...CHECK THESE LINKS OUT.
Why am I being so obnoxiously in your face about this whole thing? Well, to prove that I know what I'm talking about and that some of you need to get a reality check. I don't mean to honk my own horn here but...beep beep!
Forget for a minute, forget that the iPod exists. Pretend you were using the same portable music player you had (if you had one) 4 years ago. How did you have your music with you? How many CD's did you carry with you? How many did you want to be able to use?
Ahh, thank God for the iPod. But to me, it isnt the iPod's capacity that draws me to it anymore. I am beyond that, I have no desire or REAL need to have as many songs as 10,000 in my pocket. It costs a lot of money to do that, it also costs pocket space. While the iPod may be small in comparison to portable CD players or most other "comparable" MP3 players, it just isnt a mini.
The mini will be the best selling product in Apple's history, I have no doubts about it. I think the mini is being overlooked, simply because it gets compared in terms of storage capacity. Think about this for a second: it has as much internal storage as the original iMac did!
The mini is effectively going to be Apple's next iMac, this time in comparison to success, not storage capacity.
$249 is too much money to pay for what it is? Look at what it is NOT before you go all negative on me. It is NOT big, it is NOT expensive COMPARED to other iPod's, it is NOT heavy, it does NOT take up room, it is NOT just white, it does NOT have pitiful storage capacity.
This new iPod mini lacks so many things, that it is perfect. And before christmas, it is going to lose something else: $50 off its price tag. Of course, I didnt care about the price, because I paid for what is isnt, as much as I paid for what it is.
Never before have I been so amazed by a "mini" iteration of a product. This new iPod has everything that just about everyone needs. It is interesting to me that people talk up the idea of a low priced tower computer, this is the exact same thing as that except in digital music player form. It appeals to the masses who honestly, could care less about a 9,000 song difference. It is all about the $250 dollar difference, for $250 dollars less...look what you get...and also, look what you DONT get.
I predicted the success of the iPod mini back on 02-12-2004 10:22 PM.
Right here and now I predict that the next iMac will outsell the original, meaning more than 6 million units in its life span.
The new iMac will be an overwhelming success for its target market. Who is the target market? Here is my top ten list:
10. People who have never heard of doom and think that "gamer" refers to people who play one or more hours of solitaire a day.
9. People who answer to the name "grandma".
8. Those who are 13 and under.
7. People who can successfully hook up a mouse, keyboard, and speakers, but can't for the life of them figure out what to do with the monitor cable.
6. People who have to take medication for panic attacks after encountering a mouse with more than one button.
5. People who don't know the difference between video cards and playing cards.
4. People who bought the original iMac based on color without ever realizing that there were substantive differences in the models besides color.
3. People who consider their computer a friend or a little buddy.
2. People who want to have Steve Job's baby.
1. People with more dollars than sense.
There you have it. The iMac's target market. If you feel let down or abandoned or disappointed by the new (potential) specs, then consider yourself fortunate that you do not fit the description of the iMac's target market. Save up your money and buy a PM and join me in patiently awaiting the day when Apple finally decides to produce a true consumer desktop for the rest of us.
Comments
?Thinksecret may be incorrect.
?We do not know BTO options.
?Apple's user base expands by nearly 3.5 million users every year, the platform is growing not shrinking.
?Apple's market share can only get better, right?
?We don't know what the iMac will look like yet.
?It will use a G5 and a screamingly fast Bus, we know this. The processor and bus speed alone will trounce anything in the $999 to $1499 price range.
?Apple sells competitive hardware, with an engine (OS X) that is unmatched.
What do you doomsdayers think about that?
Originally posted by inkhead
let me make it clear, thinksecret is NOT wrong about the specs. I know they are correct ;-)
what are the bto options then?
Originally posted by inkhead
I've been in meetings at Apple Sunnyvale....
I'm curious: where in Sunnyvale did you attend your meetings? I've lived in Sunnyvale for 12 years and have never seen an Apple office of any sort here. Since you've attended more than one meeting at Apple's Sunnyvale offices, can you tell me where they're located?
BTW, did you know that the U.S. Ducati distributor is only a short distance from the "other" Apple offices (but not in Sunnyvale, either). Popular bikes here in the valley.
5.1 digital sound...right in time for QT7 and OpenAL. People have been wanting this forever but Macs just didn't have enough software or core elements to fully take advantage of multichannel sound.
The iMac would be Tiger-ready. And Tiger is going to be frickin' awesome. Sure, Doom 3 won't run like a champ but neither do the $999 PCs.
Originally posted by hmurchison
...I don't want every Tom,Dick and Harry on the platform. Mac users should be the cream. That's why Apple likely doesn't want gamers. Gamers produce nothing but silly framerates and flamewars, the fiends ...
Well I'm glad that you are not running Apple, and I'm sure most stock holders aren't either. If you remember the original marketing campaign, the original iMac was designed with every Tom, Dick, and Harry and so were most of the iApps. As a professional Designer I would never think to use any of them in my professional life. iPhoto is fine for my wife, but I much prefer Photoshop even for the most rutine tasks. If I need a database for images give me something with some muscle Cumulus. Text editing, it's either Word or BBEdit. The iMac (3 plugs and your on the internet right?) iApps were designed with the sole purpose of adding value and attracting every day users to the Mac platform, not the professionals that were already using them.
Originally posted by hmurchison
...$1300 wasn't that much more expensive in 2000 than it is today. It's the expectations that are different. Just as many people can afford the the iMac coming as those that purchased the first iMac.
That depends on the market and product that you are looking at. In the case of pharmasuticals, higher education, health care, and fuel the prices have risen much faster than the rate of inflation. If you look at DVD players the prices have dropped much faster than the rate of enflation. The fact is that in the technology markets, even of over the past 4 years the price of products tends to drop over time even as the specs go up because the technology to make them improves making them less expensive to manufacture while producing larger yields of usable product. This has not been the case in the processors that the Mac uses, and as a result it has not been the case with Mac so the prices have gone up while the performance lagged behind that of the rest of the industry. Let's hope that this trend is soon reversed, though with IBM's problems with the 970's so far this year it doesn't look like it is going to happen soon enough.
Originally posted by inkhead
let me make it clear, thinksecret is NOT wrong about the specs. I know they are correct ;-)
what are tho bto options?
Well I'm glad that you are not running Apple, and I'm sure most stock holders aren't either.
Apple and the stockholders care about making a profit not placating the whimsical needs of spec whores. Bottom line Apple offers Macs from $799 on up. You don't like that..look elsewhere. Actions speak louder than words and Apple is yelling right now.
Come on guys. Are we ever going to lean on AI??? We've heard it all.
"Apple's gone bezerk...a music player for $500???".
"The iPod Mini is going to fail. Who would buy a 4GB $249 player when for $50 they get a 15GB iPod"
I think the people that we need to stop listening to are the chicken little on these boards screaming about price. The iPod clearly shows price is not always the mitigating factor
Here's how I feel about the iMac coming.
Yes it could have a faster GPU and CPU but this is a first generation of a new design. I'd take it pretty conservative if I was Apple. You got people pissed because Apple doesn't have a 2Ghz G5 or a ATI 9600 in the unit. They don't even know the thermal characteristics of the case. Overheating doesn't do you any good. Let Apple take it slow.
Also keep in mind that 2004 is a transition to PCI Express and new GPUs. I expect Apple to "catch up" with the next refresh.
Some people here could really use a visit to the optician, so that they can see the forest for the trees.
A premium is fine for a premium product. (Seems to be what Apple's profit potential has always been)
I don't think this iMac is going to fit into it's schemes.
Originally posted by inkhead
I bought a $500 iPod, I could have bought a $300 rioplayer. The iPod had better specs, if you compare it to the other options out there it doesn't look so expensive.
A premium is fine for a premium product. (Seems to be what Apple's profit potential has always been)
I don't think this iMac is going to fit into it's schemes.
The iMac is going to have a G5, it will have a massive LCD screen, it will have a FAST bus speed, it will have bluetooth and airport networking, it will be capable of running OS X with ease.
It will cost what it should cost.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple and the stockholders care about making a profit not placating the whimsical needs of spec whores. Bottom line Apple offers Macs from $799 on up. You don't like that..look elsewhere. Actions speak louder than words and Apple is yelling right now. ...
First off how many more units (Computers, not iPods) is Apple selling today than they were 4 years ago? What percentage has that part of their business grown? How does that compare to the growth in the computer industry as a whole? How much more would Apple's stock and business be worth today if they grew as much as the rest of the industry?
Apple does make a $799 computer, but they aren't really marketing it to the general public. Sure the Mac market knows about it, but when was the last eMac commercial on network TV? What magazines outside of Mac publications have you seen a print add for it? From what I have seen they are not trying very hard to sell these computers. The bottom line is that Apple has not really tried to market this computer as a consumer computer, probably for many reasons including not wanting to dilute the brand identity of the iMac so that when they are able to market it as a serious contender in the consumer market again they can.
Apple has been making some noise on the software front, with their OS, music apps, and professional apps. They have even made some promising news and gained some respect with the G5 computers. I don't think that this can be denied. I think that they have fallen short in their efforts with their consumer desktop computers. I think that it is too soon to predict how the new iMac will be recieved, but my feeling is that if the prices and specs are right in the TS article that they will be recieved about as well and have the same market performance curve that the G4 iMac did.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Also keep in mind that 2004 is a transition to PCI Express and new GPUs. I expect Apple to "catch up" with the next refresh.
If Apple's track record in adopting new technology that they have not developed holds true I wouldnn't expect to see PCI Express untill 2006, especially in their consumer models since a new design will have just been released.
hmurchison, I respect your knowldge and your zeal for the Mac platform. However I think that it, as well as your apparent eletism, are blinding you to the real possabilities for the Mac platform. No not all the problems were created by Apple, most of them were limits of the hardware that they adopted. Others are and were compromises to make their computers more profitable. However, if they were able to make and sell significantly more computers then the resulting increase in volume should bring a cut in cost of production and allow for more profit and possibly a reduction in price of their entire line. You know if the market share of the Mac platform increases everyone who owns a Mac wins through the potential for more software ported over to the platform, probably with faster release dates and at a lower cost. The same holds true with third party hardware. A larger market share, and larger install base means that the potential market for these items is larger so the R & D costs can be spread out over a larger consumer base.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
They have a computer that sells for 1200 and has a Radeon X300 with 128 MB of RAM, which is comparable to the Radeon Mobile 9600. Nothing special.
Um, try again. The X300 is a PCIe native card. Big improvement over the 9600.
Why am I being so obnoxiously in your face about this whole thing? Well, to prove that I know what I'm talking about and that some of you need to get a reality check. I don't mean to honk my own horn here but...beep beep!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ht=iPod+future
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ight=iPod+mini
Forget for a minute, forget that the iPod exists. Pretend you were using the same portable music player you had (if you had one) 4 years ago. How did you have your music with you? How many CD's did you carry with you? How many did you want to be able to use?
Ahh, thank God for the iPod. But to me, it isnt the iPod's capacity that draws me to it anymore. I am beyond that, I have no desire or REAL need to have as many songs as 10,000 in my pocket. It costs a lot of money to do that, it also costs pocket space. While the iPod may be small in comparison to portable CD players or most other "comparable" MP3 players, it just isnt a mini.
The mini will be the best selling product in Apple's history, I have no doubts about it. I think the mini is being overlooked, simply because it gets compared in terms of storage capacity. Think about this for a second: it has as much internal storage as the original iMac did!
The mini is effectively going to be Apple's next iMac, this time in comparison to success, not storage capacity.
$249 is too much money to pay for what it is? Look at what it is NOT before you go all negative on me. It is NOT big, it is NOT expensive COMPARED to other iPod's, it is NOT heavy, it does NOT take up room, it is NOT just white, it does NOT have pitiful storage capacity.
This new iPod mini lacks so many things, that it is perfect. And before christmas, it is going to lose something else: $50 off its price tag. Of course, I didnt care about the price, because I paid for what is isnt, as much as I paid for what it is.
Never before have I been so amazed by a "mini" iteration of a product. This new iPod has everything that just about everyone needs. It is interesting to me that people talk up the idea of a low priced tower computer, this is the exact same thing as that except in digital music player form. It appeals to the masses who honestly, could care less about a 9,000 song difference. It is all about the $250 dollar difference, for $250 dollars less...look what you get...and also, look what you DONT get.
I predicted the success of the iPod mini back on 02-12-2004 10:22 PM.
Right here and now I predict that the next iMac will outsell the original, meaning more than 6 million units in its life span.
The new iMac will be an overwhelming success for its target market. Who is the target market? Here is my top ten list:
10. People who have never heard of doom and think that "gamer" refers to people who play one or more hours of solitaire a day.
9. People who answer to the name "grandma".
8. Those who are 13 and under.
7. People who can successfully hook up a mouse, keyboard, and speakers, but can't for the life of them figure out what to do with the monitor cable.
6. People who have to take medication for panic attacks after encountering a mouse with more than one button.
5. People who don't know the difference between video cards and playing cards.
4. People who bought the original iMac based on color without ever realizing that there were substantive differences in the models besides color.
3. People who consider their computer a friend or a little buddy.
2. People who want to have Steve Job's baby.
1. People with more dollars than sense.
There you have it. The iMac's target market. If you feel let down or abandoned or disappointed by the new (potential) specs, then consider yourself fortunate that you do not fit the description of the iMac's target market. Save up your money and buy a PM and join me in patiently awaiting the day when Apple finally decides to produce a true consumer desktop for the rest of us.
Happy ranting..
Good night, all.