I'm actually impressed with Apple financials. You have to remember all the aquisitions they made the past year and all the iApps that are coming out, and OS X, too. You have to consider all of the projects that Apple has going on behind the scenes with all that software that needs to be ported, coded, and then optimized for OS X. Programmers aren't cheap. Same with hardware engineers. This gives me hope for the future.
Also, remember the time of the great megahertz bounce-back? Remember Steve during those interviews? He wasn't confident then, but he sure the hell is now. There IS something going on behind the scenes, I bet your money on it.
<strong>I'm actually impressed with Apple financials. You have to remember all the aquisitions they made the past year... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The aquisions don't get written off as expenses, so they really don't have much effect on the profit in a quarter (which is what we're talking about) unless there was a writing down of the assets (ie they basically admit paying more for them than they were worth).
But if Maya and Lightwave drop the mac becuase its hardware is too cr*p to make people switch enough to warrant the development costs it would do far more harm to the idea of 3D on a mac than the announcement of Maya on the mac did it good.
If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry, market share for Maya on mac is growing steadily. BTW, I run Maya on my Powerbook SD, and it runs great. In fact I prefer it on my laptop than my desktop. I ran some tests and it out performed my dual Intel 1.4 GHZ processor in Paint FX and Dynamics simulations.
never saw that before. now since im somewhat new to macs and dont know too much about the history, can any mac vetrans tell me what caused the huge jump in mac numbers between 1990-1991 ?
and what pray tell happened just 5 years later in 1995-1996 that caused apple to loose half their marketshare??? was it the windows 95 rollout? that drop is just amazing!</strong><hr></blockquote>
First question is relatively easy: that's approximately when the Mac revolution really kicked in for the design/pre-press industries: also release of Illustrator 3.0, XPress 3.0 and Photoshop 2.0.
Second question... could be the Windows rollout, could be just general depression in the Mac core market - economics a little before then was pretty rough.
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least some of their "R&D" budget has been spent on giving Universities entire labs full of top-of-the-line desktops and server chock full of MS software and development tools. I suppose it's to research whether throwing free stuff at academia can both dislodge UNIX, and develop a way to get them on the paid upgrade treadmill.
Some fraction of it actually appears to go into research, because they do come out with something unique every so often: For example, theirs are the only mice which only expose all their functionality if they detect a Microsoft driver on the host machine.
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think MSN, .NET, passport, all kinds of server & SQL stuff, XBox, Stinger, WebTV, Tablets, multiple OSs, paying off congress, their new "trustworthy" computing effort, palladium, etc. Those are just a couple that rolled off my head. Also think about how much time and effort they must spend just testing on all the different types of hardware out there - and writing drivers.
If nothing else, think about how much R&D goes into Bills house :eek:
[quote]I sold my stock a while ago. Apple just doesn't get it. Their software is ready to take on Microsoft and the world but their hardware is just pathetic. Overpriced, quality is down, underpowered, you name it. ................................ <hr></blockquote>
Well, I haven't sold my stock.
However, your point is well noted about the desktops. Apple don't seem to quite get it.
If their desktops mirrored the laptops in terms of bang for buck then we might be more happy and Apple would sell more desktops.
iMac. Specs not updated in a year..? That IS pathetic. Great machine awaiting spec boost and price reduct'.
eMac. Replace this goddamn thing with a headless iCube.
'power'Macs. Well. Deep price cuts. Offer single cpu at the low end and dual cpu at the higher end.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Pie Man, how'd you like my new quote marks? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Who gets more bang for the buck?</strong><hr></blockquote>
we are,
3% of the entire pc market is mac 95% is microsoft
it's just ten times more instead of thirty something
and at apple they are more creative.
less or no money triggers creativity.
you can spend a lot of money on a bad idea. it could look better than it was without a lot of money spend but it's still a bad idea (that's why microsoft spends that much: they have no idea's from their own at all. they have to steal it or buy it and change it somehow. maybe powerpoint was their only good idea or did they stole that one to )
"But if Maya and Lightwave drop the mac becuase its hardware is too cr*p to make people switch enough to warrant the development costs it would do far more harm to the idea of 3D on a mac than the announcement of Maya on the mac did it good.
If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again."
Thats right! 3D on mac is hanging on to a thin thread. Mac OSX is the best and most beautiful OS ever made it deserves the best in professional 3D software and hardware. But with no more 3D, mac will be even more boring than windows.
I find it quite funny that so many people think that "Apple doesn't get it" when it comes to the PowerMacs. Perhaps they do get it, and you don't? Sure they'd sell more PowerMacs if they could build a faster one -- but these things don't just grow on trees when you want them to, they are expensive long running engineering projects. Sure they'd sell more PowerMacs if they dropped the price, but would the increase in sales make up for the per-unit decrease in margins? Without being privvy to the internal discussions, to say that Apple doesn't get it is increadibly naive.
Many times over the years, Programmer, Apple hasn't got it. And that's precisely why they are where they are today. To think otherwise IS naive. Only the inspired and brilliant leadership of Jobs and his 'team' have halted the downward momentum caused by the crushing death blow that was Windows 95 and the weak management pre-97.
They had the chance to get in on cloning on the ground floor. Didn't. They squandered millions on things outside their core market. Had little software. No retail presence. An ageing OS. For years they didn't have a Mac under 1 K. Take away the iMac from the last 5 years and Apple would be remembered with flowers.
So, have they 'got it' with 'power'Macs? Nope. They've clearly had it 'wrong' for a good few years in terms of price and performance. They could have cheaper towers with single cpu towers just under the current prices of the duals and push the over priced iMac2s where they belong, under a K.
The current 'power'Macs are so out of touch with the current market for towers, I'm surprised sales are as 'good' as they are 'bad' now.
They are certainly 'naive' if they are blaming 'disappointing' sales on Photoshop 7 and subsequently, Quark's non-appearance at the 'X' party. Perhaps it has something to do with half-baked upgrades.
I guess Steve Jobs is as frustrated as I am. Maybe.
Still, enjoy your dual gigger, Programmer. I'm waiting for something other than a geriatric CPU.
(...something competitive.)
[quote] If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again." <hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. Alias themselves say Mac sales are 25% of total Maya sales. Not bad for a 3D program that has barely been on the Mac for long. With pending Nvidia/Ati cards, Apple's good GL implementation and apps like Lightwave 7.5, Cinema 4D 8, Maya and Shake and Final Cut Pro, the '3D' market on the Mac has never looked better in terms of software and graphics cards hardware. And Curious Labs still think 'X' is worth porting the 'not bad' Poser 5 for. We've got a copy of the cool 'Terragen' heading out of Beta and Vue's looking better with each upgrade for a former PC only app. And then Mac 3D games have never been so prolific. S'funny. Software wise, the Mac and 3D has never had it so good.
It's the cpu that's missing in action.
But as Programmer 'naively' points out above, these things don't just grow on trees.
<strong>Many times over the years, Programmer, Apple hasn't got it. And that's precisely why were they are today. To think otherwise IS naive.
They had the chance to get in on cloning on the ground floor. Didn't. They squandered millions on things outside their core market. Had little software. No retail presence. An ageing OS. For years they didn't have a Mac under 1 K. Take away the iMac from the last 5 years and Apple would be remembered with flowers.
So, have they 'got it' with 'power'Macs? Nope. They've clearly had it 'wrong' for a good few years in terms of price and performance. The current 'power'Macs are so out of touch with the current market for towers, I'm surprised sales are as 'good' as they are 'bad' now.
They are certainly 'naive' if they are blaming 'disappointing' sales on Photoshop 7 and subsequently, Quark's non-appearance at the 'X' party. Perhaps it has something to do with half-baked upgrades.
I guess Steve Jobs is as frustrated as I am. Maybe.
Still, enjoy your dual gigger, Programmer. I'm waiting for something other than a geriatric CPU.
In the meantime, I'll await something competitive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple isn't an individual, its a company run by individuals. Those individuals come and go, and in the past Apple has had some less capable leaders at the helm. Many of their missteps were due to bad high level decisions by those leaders, and/or the inability of those leaders to focus corporate direction. Some missteps were just because of forces outside of Apple's control -- can you say that you manage to get around in this world without anybody else getting in your way?
Their current position on the high end market has more to do with their processor suppliers than it does any errors on the part of Apple's current management. Processor development is expensive, slow, and risky and everybody stumbles occasionally. Recovering from that can take time, fortunately Apple has managed to ride out this period although their sales have clearly suffered. Their current high end lineup isn't because they "don't get it", its because they are dealing with their current situation as best they can. Frankly I'm amazed they are doing as well as they are!
As for what they "blame" for their troubles during their financial reports -- I'm sure you have better data than they do, so of course you're right. You have to be carefully second guessing that kind of thing... for example, perhaps they haven't dropped their PowerMac prices 20% because the those key apps aren't in position. If those key apps were in position then a 20% price drop might net enough sales to make up for the loss of profit per machine. They know their machines are fast enough to get your purchase, so why would they cut their prices right now to try and get sales that aren't only motivated by price?
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't and won't address other price points, I'm just saying that their current leadership has been doing a good job of keeping the company profitable (or nearly so) in the current market and saying that they don't "get it" is rather presumptuous.
Comments
Also, remember the time of the great megahertz bounce-back? Remember Steve during those interviews? He wasn't confident then, but he sure the hell is now. There IS something going on behind the scenes, I bet your money on it.
<strong>I forget, what is Microsofts R&D expenditure?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing, they just watch the Steve-notes! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I'm actually impressed with Apple financials. You have to remember all the aquisitions they made the past year... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The aquisions don't get written off as expenses, so they really don't have much effect on the profit in a quarter (which is what we're talking about) unless there was a writing down of the assets (ie they basically admit paying more for them than they were worth).
<strong>
But if Maya and Lightwave drop the mac becuase its hardware is too cr*p to make people switch enough to warrant the development costs it would do far more harm to the idea of 3D on a mac than the announcement of Maya on the mac did it good.
If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry, market share for Maya on mac is growing steadily. BTW, I run Maya on my Powerbook SD, and it runs great. In fact I prefer it on my laptop than my desktop. I ran some tests and it out performed my dual Intel 1.4 GHZ processor in Paint FX and Dynamics simulations.
<strong>thanks jll
never saw that before. now since im somewhat new to macs and dont know too much about the history, can any mac vetrans tell me what caused the huge jump in mac numbers between 1990-1991 ?
and what pray tell happened just 5 years later in 1995-1996 that caused apple to loose half their marketshare??? was it the windows 95 rollout? that drop is just amazing!</strong><hr></blockquote>
First question is relatively easy: that's approximately when the Mac revolution really kicked in for the design/pre-press industries: also release of Illustrator 3.0, XPress 3.0 and Photoshop 2.0.
Second question... could be the Windows rollout, could be just general depression in the Mac core market - economics a little before then was pretty rough.
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2"; target="_blank">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2</A>;
WTF??????????
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?
Damn service pack updates must cost a fortune to develop.
Its ten times Apples.
Who gets more bang for the buck?
<strong>Here it is:
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2"; target="_blank">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2</a>;
WTF??????????
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Watches and refrigeator magnets.
<strong>Here it is:
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2"; target="_blank">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/25/020725hngatesspend.xml?s=rss&t=news&slot=2</a>;
WTF??????????
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least some of their "R&D" budget has been spent on giving Universities entire labs full of top-of-the-line desktops and server chock full of MS software and development tools. I suppose it's to research whether throwing free stuff at academia can both dislodge UNIX, and develop a way to get them on the paid upgrade treadmill.
Some fraction of it actually appears to go into research, because they do come out with something unique every so often: For example, theirs are the only mice which only expose all their functionality if they detect a Microsoft driver on the host machine.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>WTF??????????
Where does all of Microsofts R&D go?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think MSN, .NET, passport, all kinds of server & SQL stuff, XBox, Stinger, WebTV, Tablets, multiple OSs, paying off congress, their new "trustworthy" computing effort, palladium, etc. Those are just a couple that rolled off my head. Also think about how much time and effort they must spend just testing on all the different types of hardware out there - and writing drivers.
If nothing else, think about how much R&D goes into Bills house :eek:
nice place, this is what 97 million bucks gets you: <a href="http://www.goehner.com/gates.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.goehner.com/gates.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/nycu/tech/billgate/gates.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/nycu/tech/billgate/gates.htm</a>;
<strong>nice place, this is what 97 million bucks gets you</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll take it! The cool mil in property taxes is a bit troublesome for me though. Might have to take out another credit card.
Well, I haven't sold my stock.
However, your point is well noted about the desktops. Apple don't seem to quite get it.
If their desktops mirrored the laptops in terms of bang for buck then we might be more happy and Apple would sell more desktops.
iMac. Specs not updated in a year..? That IS pathetic. Great machine awaiting spec boost and price reduct'.
eMac. Replace this goddamn thing with a headless iCube.
'power'Macs. Well. Deep price cuts. Offer single cpu at the low end and dual cpu at the higher end.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Pie Man, how'd you like my new quote marks?
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
Its ten times Apples.
Who gets more bang for the buck?</strong><hr></blockquote>
we are,
3% of the entire pc market is mac 95% is microsoft
it's just ten times more instead of thirty something
and at apple they are more creative.
less or no money triggers creativity.
you can spend a lot of money on a bad idea. it could look better than it was without a lot of money spend but it's still a bad idea (that's why microsoft spends that much: they have no idea's from their own at all. they have to steal it or buy it and change it somehow. maybe powerpoint was their only good idea or did they stole that one to
<strong>PS. Pie Man, how'd you like my new quote marks?
It looked so natural I didn't even notice. But I did read the post
"But if Maya and Lightwave drop the mac becuase its hardware is too cr*p to make people switch enough to warrant the development costs it would do far more harm to the idea of 3D on a mac than the announcement of Maya on the mac did it good.
If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again."
Thats right! 3D on mac is hanging on to a thin thread. Mac OSX is the best and most beautiful OS ever made it deserves the best in professional 3D software and hardware. But with no more 3D, mac will be even more boring than windows.
They had the chance to get in on cloning on the ground floor. Didn't. They squandered millions on things outside their core market. Had little software. No retail presence. An ageing OS. For years they didn't have a Mac under 1 K. Take away the iMac from the last 5 years and Apple would be remembered with flowers.
So, have they 'got it' with 'power'Macs? Nope. They've clearly had it 'wrong' for a good few years in terms of price and performance. They could have cheaper towers with single cpu towers just under the current prices of the duals and push the over priced iMac2s where they belong, under a K.
The current 'power'Macs are so out of touch with the current market for towers, I'm surprised sales are as 'good' as they are 'bad' now.
They are certainly 'naive' if they are blaming 'disappointing' sales on Photoshop 7 and subsequently, Quark's non-appearance at the 'X' party. Perhaps it has something to do with half-baked upgrades.
I guess Steve Jobs is as frustrated as I am. Maybe.
Still, enjoy your dual gigger, Programmer. I'm waiting for something other than a geriatric CPU.
(...something competitive.)
[quote] If Alias wavefront ever stopped development of Maya on the Mac it would send a clear signal that the mac just can't cut it - we'd never see the mac in 3D again." <hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. Alias themselves say Mac sales are 25% of total Maya sales. Not bad for a 3D program that has barely been on the Mac for long. With pending Nvidia/Ati cards, Apple's good GL implementation and apps like Lightwave 7.5, Cinema 4D 8, Maya and Shake and Final Cut Pro, the '3D' market on the Mac has never looked better in terms of software and graphics cards hardware. And Curious Labs still think 'X' is worth porting the 'not bad' Poser 5 for. We've got a copy of the cool 'Terragen' heading out of Beta and Vue's looking better with each upgrade for a former PC only app. And then Mac 3D games have never been so prolific. S'funny. Software wise, the Mac and 3D has never had it so good.
It's the cpu that's missing in action.
But as Programmer 'naively' points out above, these things don't just grow on trees.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Many times over the years, Programmer, Apple hasn't got it. And that's precisely why were they are today. To think otherwise IS naive.
They had the chance to get in on cloning on the ground floor. Didn't. They squandered millions on things outside their core market. Had little software. No retail presence. An ageing OS. For years they didn't have a Mac under 1 K. Take away the iMac from the last 5 years and Apple would be remembered with flowers.
So, have they 'got it' with 'power'Macs? Nope. They've clearly had it 'wrong' for a good few years in terms of price and performance. The current 'power'Macs are so out of touch with the current market for towers, I'm surprised sales are as 'good' as they are 'bad' now.
They are certainly 'naive' if they are blaming 'disappointing' sales on Photoshop 7 and subsequently, Quark's non-appearance at the 'X' party. Perhaps it has something to do with half-baked upgrades.
I guess Steve Jobs is as frustrated as I am. Maybe.
Still, enjoy your dual gigger, Programmer. I'm waiting for something other than a geriatric CPU.
In the meantime, I'll await something competitive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple isn't an individual, its a company run by individuals. Those individuals come and go, and in the past Apple has had some less capable leaders at the helm. Many of their missteps were due to bad high level decisions by those leaders, and/or the inability of those leaders to focus corporate direction. Some missteps were just because of forces outside of Apple's control -- can you say that you manage to get around in this world without anybody else getting in your way?
Their current position on the high end market has more to do with their processor suppliers than it does any errors on the part of Apple's current management. Processor development is expensive, slow, and risky and everybody stumbles occasionally. Recovering from that can take time, fortunately Apple has managed to ride out this period although their sales have clearly suffered. Their current high end lineup isn't because they "don't get it", its because they are dealing with their current situation as best they can. Frankly I'm amazed they are doing as well as they are!
As for what they "blame" for their troubles during their financial reports -- I'm sure you have better data than they do, so of course you're right. You have to be carefully second guessing that kind of thing... for example, perhaps they haven't dropped their PowerMac prices 20% because the those key apps aren't in position. If those key apps were in position then a 20% price drop might net enough sales to make up for the loss of profit per machine. They know their machines are fast enough to get your purchase, so why would they cut their prices right now to try and get sales that aren't only motivated by price?
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't and won't address other price points, I'm just saying that their current leadership has been doing a good job of keeping the company profitable (or nearly so) in the current market and saying that they don't "get it" is rather presumptuous.