Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF

145791012

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 236
    from listening to this G5 nonsense on these forums for the longest time (because i want one so bad even though it doesn't yet exist to consumers) i have learned what Apple's strategy IS... you must keep one thing in mind when figuring this out and that is this:



    Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money... Apple is a corporation and thats what corporations do... therefore:



    APPLE WILL NOT RELEASE A 970 THIS MACWORLD



    what it will do is use whatever latest speedbumped G4 moto has come up with and push that for a while lets say its a 1.4ghz for the top end... Then when its time for another revision they'll do the same and push a 1.6ghz top end... and by this time they will have made quite a bit of profit from these two revisions and STILL have the 970 feeding frenzy to come.... Next they'll probably make another bump to 1.8 or something like that and then finally late 2003 or early 2004 will they release the 970 and it may be slightly earlier or later depending on other 64 bit competition...



    Tell me, does a good player use his/her best cards at the begining of the game?
  • Reply 122 of 236
    [quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:

    <strong>



    I sure hope you are wrong...Apple needs to dump Moto, and the sooner the better!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple doesn't need to dump anyone... They need to keep all windows of possibility open, and alwasy be prepared to jump ship on the best posibility. This is what Apple is supposed to be about, and this is what Jobs has been lately claiming: "we love options"



    Apple should even talk to AMD about producing PowerPCs, because talking doesn't hurt anyone... I'm not saying it's going to happen, but they should be talking!!! Jobs would agree, and they have at least talked in Marklar esque areas...
  • Reply 123 of 236
    Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.



    That's the thing- most graphics people use quark somewhere in their workflow, or have customers to do. Sure, illustrators and others like them may have no problem, but that's a much smaller number of people than the entire industry. In an office, even if only a few people need to use quark on their machine, hte office is unlikely to switch because support would be a nightmare.



    I really think that for alot of people, software ability is hurting apple much more than the availability of faster machines like those based on the 970. For large firms such as publishers, the purchasers probably don't know anything about these upcoming macs- they purchase machines to do a job, which the current ones do.



    They will also only buy new macs if the existing ones need replacing- most macs released in the past 4 years are fast enough to run photoshop and Quark adequately in os9 for most users. The change to osX should drive a whole lot of new purchasing. The guardian Newspaper in London, for example is planning to purchase a brand new complement of machines when updating to osx, for example.
  • Reply 124 of 236
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:

    <strong>In an office, even if only a few people need to use quark on their machine, hte office is unlikely to switch because support would be a nightmare. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    In what way would that be a support nightmare?
  • Reply 125 of 236
    vr6vr6 Posts: 77member
    [quote]Originally posted by neovirusnine:

    <strong>

    Tell me, does a good player use his/her best cards at the begining of the game?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A good player uses the right cards at the right time. And a good player who has fallen way behind in a game starts to quickly play to catch up rather than playing lousy cards which don't need to be played.



    The only question in my mind is if Apple has been dealt the 970 card already - and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it won't be able to play that card until at least the summer.



    However, if Apple could put out a 970 based computer at MWSF you can bet that as a good company, they would.



    Apple is spending substantially to try to convince people to switch to their platform. The chief concern is the perceived (and often actual) speed of their CPUs. The second concern is pricing. If Apple was able to play a one-two punch on the pricing performance issue, they would be ready to steal several share points while generating shareholder value.



    Of course, they don't do this not because they are trying to slowly milk the market, but because they CANNOT. Motorola has been horrible in supplying and producing fast chips. Pricing on the consumer line has finally been addressed, but the differentiating value proposition of Apple (easily make movies, burn dvds, burn cds, organize photos) requires some expensive hardware (superdrives) - so getting the apple distinction is still expensive.
  • Reply 126 of 236
    At the bottom of todays MacInTouch front page, in the specials section, a company called ExperCon is offering rebates on one powerbook and all three tower models.



    Clearing out the channel???





    Just a guess.
  • Reply 127 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:

    <strong>Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    See, this is what good rumours are, no good at all. Last rumour I heard about the Guardian is that they're going to switch the whole thing over to InDesign.



    Whenever Quark is available, in some far distant future, there will be no rush to buy it - Quark's own figures speak for this (a little while ago they publicly stated that the majority of their customers were now using 4.x - wasn't 4.x released about three years ago!?) - there will be a slow trickle, until people have the confidence in XPress X. That will take 2-3 years.
  • Reply 128 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>



    You just can't accept that people are using Mac OS X can you?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Don't be a wally all your life, of course people are using it. What I'm saying, and you seem to think otherwise, is that Apple will *struggle* to meet it's 20% adoption target by the end of the year.



    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>Don't you think that Apple does market research?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Market research? Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty. So if you can show me some of this published material that says the uptake of X is so great then it will be time for me to shut-up.



    If you want to believe every bit of PR hype that you read, then fine. I beg to differ.



    What we can see about about Apple's market research is that: they believe that X adoption is so strong that they've reassured their customers that 9.x machines will be available for at least another six months; that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption (Apple's K10 says "the forecast boost to sales upon the arrival of a native Photoshop largely failed to materialise").



    Now you can believe what you like, but as far as facts go there are few on the ground. I'll go with what the discernable facts point to. If you want to go with the PR, that's up to you.
  • Reply 129 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>



    Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'll vote with that man - XPress is a page-layout and production tool. Great that you can port your templates over. But can you port your production skills over so easily (answer: no, because the functionality that XPress power-users take for granted in XPress do not exist in InDesign - but who knows what the next version will bring).



    If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.



    (Note: Photoshop 7.x runs under 9.x, so there's nothing to encourage X adoption just to get its features.)
  • Reply 130 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by neovirusnine:

    <strong>Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money... Apple is a corporation and thats what corporations do... therefore:



    APPLE WILL NOT RELEASE A 970 THIS MACWORLD...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong, wrong, wrong.



    You write as if Apple is deliberately holding back the 970 - no tech-driven company could afford to do that, and it's shareholders would strangle it if they thought that was happening.



    Apple needs to get the best machines it can out to the market as soon as it can. It may well introduce a high-end 970, while simultaneously producing a G4 tower, but there's no way it would hold back a 970 if it had the ability to deliver them.
  • Reply 131 of 236
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    BS! Research is something you do to see how you're doing, and most of the times, the research is done internally with noone but themselves to cite as source.



    I guess you haven't even been near someone who's trying to make business decisions.
  • Reply 132 of 236
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>there will be a slow trickle, until people have the confidence in XPress X. That will take 2-3 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A little contradicting here.
  • Reply 133 of 236
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>



    I'll vote with that man - XPress is a page-layout and production tool. Great that you can port your templates over. But can you port your production skills over so easily (answer: no, because the functionality that XPress power-users take for granted in XPress do not exist in InDesign - but who knows what the next version will bring).



    If people wanted to switch to InDesign then they would have already done so - 2.0.x has been out a year.



    (Note: Photoshop 7.x runs under 9.x, so there's nothing to encourage X adoption just to get its features.)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree with a lot of what you have said Clive, however not on this point. I know for a fact that some of the largest book publishing companies are researching InDesign/InCopy workflows right now to see how they compare with Quark, with the idea of saving time in the writing, editing, and production workflow. At least one of those publishers that I work with has stated that they were not impressed with Quarks current workflow solution.



    There is also a large push into figuring out how to effectively use XML in this workflow to repurpose the printed material to the Web in a more effecient way. I think that this is going to be the key to the next big software adoption by these companies. This will, in theory, save publishing companies money to offset the expense. The skill to use these new solutions will come with time as the people learn new skills, and education teaches a new crop of professionals.



    The thing to remember is that neither side is a winner yet. The timeframe to any major shift will take time, but it is starting now. Quark has some advantages; legacy files and skills, better prepress support, faster performance with older computers, just to name a few. InDesign has some pluses as well, in particular their PDF workflow which is making inroads into prepress houses, expecially where computer to plate printing is bieng used.



    I would also place a countionary note about Apples place in these markets, if an Apple solution is no better than, yet costs sugnificantly higher than a Windows solution, then Apple may loose all or part of their core market. The ramifications of these decisions will shake the industry, as it trickles down to the venders that these large publishing companies use to get their books produced, from the writers, editors, designers, illustrators, cartographers, production workers, prepress and even printing plants (now that CTP is a reality).
  • Reply 134 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>



    BS! Research is something you do to see how you're doing, and most of the times, the research is done internally with noone but themselves to cite as source.



    I guess you haven't even been near someone who's trying to make business decisions.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Right, research is something you do so you know where you're at. PR is something you do to tell other people where you're at.



    You see the subtle difference?



    If we get to see the basis of the "research", then we can get a feel for its veracity. If we don't have such access, then we're in the dark - and probably deliberately so.
  • Reply 135 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>



    A little contradicting here.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Since you're in Copenhagen, I'll assume your first language is Danish, and your second English. I can't even begin to speak Danish so you're one up on me straight away, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



    However, you're completely wrong in thinking there's any contradiction in what you quote - so I'll put that down to you not quite understanding what I've written.



    First statement refers explicitly to InDesign: there's inertia in the market place because people do not want to switch applications (ie they have no switched to InDesign from XPress despite InDesign 2.0 being out for some time).



    Second statement refers explicitly to a future version of XPress: there's inertia in the market place because even if Quark released an X native version of XPress people would not rush out and buy it (any more so than they have rushed to buy XPress 5.0).



    Do you now see that there is no contradiction?
  • Reply 136 of 236
    At the risk of sounding adversarial....Clive, I think you dilute your good points by making generalizations and conclusions that are not supported - I think that is why I keep feeling compelled to post opposing views despite my agreement with your general points.



    So, you say: "Research is stuff you publish and cite for sources to reassure the public of its reliabilty"



    well, that is a very curious definition of research, and the previous poster was merely opining that Apple undoubtedly did some research before coming up with their OS X adoption numbers. I think that is by far the most reasonable conclusion (other than assuming they simply invented numbers).



    You continued with: "What we can see about about Apple's market research is that: they believe that X adoption is so strong that they've reassured their customers that 9.x machines will be available for at least another six months"





    I do not see this as contradictory with Apple's claimed numbers. For example - they specifically said they would offer EDU customers OS 9-booting hardware. Well, their own claim is a 50% adoption (for new EDU machines), which means 50% NOT choosing X. It seems reasonable to offer an OS 9 version to EDU in that case, yes?. And yet you claim the 50% number is inaccurate, and that offering OS 9 systems is evidence for that - I don't see the logic there.



    "that the availability of X native applications does little for Apple's pro sales - and thus X adoption (Apple's K10 says "the forecast boost to sales upon the arrival of a native Photoshop largely failed to materialise")."



    Again, I think it is a stretch to say that the quote you give above shows that availability of ALL native software does little for Apple's pro sales. I would be interested to see how many more people switched to X full time after MS Office was introduced, for exmaple, or Matlab. I think that quote only demonstrates what it says - PS in X did not boost sales *as much as was forecasted*.



    Again, sorry of this sounds pedantic - I blame my profession





    Fish
  • Reply 137 of 236
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>First statement refers explicitly to InDesign: there's inertia in the market place because people do not want to switch applications (ie they have no switched to InDesign from XPress despite InDesign 2.0 being out for some time).



    Second statement refers explicitly to a future version of XPress: there's inertia in the market place because even if Quark released an X native version of XPress people would not rush out and buy it (any more so than they have rushed to buy XPress 5.0).</strong><hr></blockquote>





    The reason for people not upgrading to QXP5 is that it doesn't have any compelling new features.



    If QXP6 will have new features that customers actually will use, they will upgrade.



    And btw. people ARE switching to InDesign.



    I'm not saying that the majority is switching, but many are tired of waiting for Quark, and now that InDesign 2 has been out for a while, they are beginning to switch - and many will follow.



    Earlier I gave you an example of two major Mac using companies here in Denmark that have switched to InDesign AND Mac OS X.



    Furthermore The Boston Globe and The New York Times have dumped QXP.



    [ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
  • Reply 138 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by @homenow:

    <strong>



    I agree with a lot of what you have said Clive, however not on this point. I know for a fact that some of the largest book publishing companies are researching InDesign/InCopy workflows right now to see how they compare with Quark, with the idea of saving time in the writing, editing, and production workflow. At least one of those publishers that I work with has stated that they were not impressed with Quarks current workflow solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think there's a key point here, they're "researching" it. And they're absolutely right to do so. What will be their conclusions after their research, and what will be their conclusions 3-6 month's after any implementation?



    We don't know.



    In the areas you highlight I don't think that Adobe is doing any better than Quark. Quark has CopyDesk and QPS, I think these are of similar if not better quality to Adobe's tools.



    The thing about Adobe is that they are great at throwing stuff out there, to get your interest... but when it comes down to the nitty gritty they don't quite measure up.



    Here's one example of that, IMO.



    Acrobat verans will have noticed that the "preferred" scripting language for Acrobat 5.0 is JavaScript. This sounds like a really neat idea, because it's cross-platform.



    But while the scripting functionality on the JavaScript side has been expanded and improved, the AppleScript functionality is more-or-less where it was in version 2.0.



    Now, should we care? Yes, on two counts: if you're a Mac workflow scripter your mainstream language of choice is AppleScript - you're going to have to learn a whole load of JavaScript to get up to speed with what you do now in AppleScript; in relation to this, if most of my workflow scripting is in AppleScript (Finder, XPress, Illustrator...), how do I make that work with JavaScript, how do a pass variables and data back and forth between the two environments....



    So, while seeming to make life better for everyone, Adobe in fact makes life more difficult for implementors, bit more easy for their programmers (who only have to think about supporting one scripting language).





    [quote]Originally posted by @homenow:

    <strong>There is also a large push into figuring out how to effectively use XML in this workflow to repurpose the printed material to the Web in a more effecient way...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I tend to agree with you, but, having been through this particular maze, I think that repurposing of content is not possible without a great deal of compromise.



    Also, the last time I looked (about three months ago) Adobe was describing InDesign's XML implementaion as "in beta", and, believe me, XPress's isn't much better.



    [quote]Originally posted by @homenow:

    <strong>The thing to remember is that neither side is a winner yet...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You know what, I don't want either one to win - I want them to work hard against each other for years to come, spurring each other on to develop better and better products.



    [quote]Originally posted by @homenow:

    <strong>I would also place a countionary note about Apples place in these markets, if an Apple solution is no better than, yet costs sugnificantly higher than a Windows solution, then Apple may loose all or part of their core market...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's my opinion that, right now, X is a difficult sell where Apple's traditional arguement is about total cost of ownershit - effectively ease of maintenance.



    That ease of maintenance has gone down the drain with X.



    What Apple still has, is good integration in the workflow: AppleScript, ColourSync, font management and rendering...



    But, as you can see (my comments above), companies like Adobe are fairly mercenary about their own interests: implementing, effectively, their own private scripting language; maintaining colour management cross-platform between their applications, using their own font management and type rendering engines...



    This dilutes the Mac/Windows divide and the the OS you end up using is effectively the "Adobe Publishing OS".
  • Reply 139 of 236
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>But, as you can see (my comments above), companies like Adobe are fairly mercenary about their own interests: implementing, effectively, their own private scripting language.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.



    InDesign supports AppleScript in a big way, and the current versions of Photoshop and ImageReady are showing the beginning of AppleScript integration.



    I would guess that the next version af Acrobat will have a better AppleScript implementation - perhaps I should ask around.
  • Reply 140 of 236
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>The reason for people not upgrading to QXP5 is that it doesn't have any compelling new features.



    If QXP6 will have new features that customers actually will use, they will upgrade.



    And btw. people ARE switching to InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    QXP5: the reason people aren't upgrading to 4.x is because it doesn't offer compelling features over 3.x (do you see a pattern here?).



    QXP6: even if people do find compelling features in XPress 6.0 you can be sure that this application with not be X only: it therefore will not encourage people to adopt X. Furthermore, as I already stated (a couple of times), any adoption of a future version of XPress will take place over several years - so again will not help speed the transition to X.



    The slow uptake of X blamed on Quark is a myth - if you believe it then that's your problem.



    InDesign: Adobe's own figures state a 10% market share, enough said.
Sign In or Register to comment.