Apple get alot of things...software wise and design wise. In this respect. I don't think they have any peers. Not even Sony. Sony don't really...'think different.' Apple? You talk their current software Jag' with Rendevous etc? Free iapps? QExtreme? Stunning. Design? Stunning. And I don't believe the current eMac or 'power'Mac are the design slips people think they are. My opinion.
However, hardware and its respective demographics?
Apple have got some problems. They're missing people and the specs? Let's be polite. They're doing the 'best' with what they've got.
"1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. Yes, I know the iMac is BACK to where it started. However, the base G4 tower is back UP to its previous $1699 price. Yes, it has more power, but it is still the lowest priced tower Apple offers, which leads to:"
Yes. Computer prices are supposed to go down. However, when you look at the Wintel side. Many of these companies can't make a profit. Remember when mobile phones were dirt cheap? Then mobile co's starting losing money when 'everyone had one'? Only Dell (Wallmart) are making any money and their margins must be razor thin.
But lets get something straight here. Give Dell some credit. With a PC market saturated...Dell are still selling many millions upon millions more computers than Apple are. TO A SATURATED MARKET!!!
Apple would do well to slave this last sacred cow. Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap. The reduction of the iMac...twice in a little while now is a positive sign.
The low end flat is now £1,049 inc Vat. Not bad.
But they'd got to get in under the 'K' in my mind. Computers are £2 - 3 K anymore. They're 1 K give or take a hundredS.
If they 'get' this. They may make it to 10%.
Speaking of which...Apple's engineer did a Macworld interview...and the things he said about Apple needing options in each price bracket to reach people who otherwise wouldn't get to you were enlightening and positive for the future. As are Apple's plans to increase their spending in Taiwan on components to make their machines more price competitive. Computers are going to get cheaper and cheaper.
For a long time...many moons ago...we didn't even have a Mac under a K in the UK! It seams like heaven compared to that now!
Apple must have been aware of what the 17 inch widescreen iMac was going to do to their low end 'power'Mac. Hence the dual processor revival. Born of necessity. If they had 1.6? They'd ship that. In dual. I liked the dual strat' originally. Good move and popular with pundits, analysts and reviewers. But with 2 gig Pentiums for under £500...well, you could argue that Apple is in a tight corner. They had to do something.
Even so. I still think the 'power'Macs are pricey. But a Unix guy after a dual processor machine? He might be in heaven...
"2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. There are tons of folks who just do not want an all in one machine. There is no consumer level upgradeable tower available for $1299, or the sweet spot of $999. Market share will NOT grow simply because of the iMac or even the eMac. Apple is foolishly ignoring a large market, the largest actually."
I agree with alot of the sentiment here. I feel Apple does need a £999 inc Vat tower. A single gig machine with Geforce 4 Mx. I'd buy. What I won't buy is a dual 1.2 gig for almost £3000 with a budget graphics card (the Radeon '9000' is nothing of the kind...it aint bad...but...) It's outrageously overpriced.
I don't think towers are essential. Dell's getting by with the 'desktop' on its side form factor. Apple prove you can pack nifty power in different designs.
However, a cheap tower under a K would get Apple sales. It's a market that sells a plenty on PC land. I'm sure many people wanting a tower look at the 'power' Macs and think...'pewwww... the price!!!' Apple are missing the extra sales it needs to get that 10% Steve wants.
Their current market grid is too rigid. Apple are making profits. I'll concede. But 'power'Mac sales are going down...and down. I don't think this update will offer anymore than a reprieve. Put a tower under a K and that may change.
For a moment with the original iMac...I thought Apple had finally learned the law of critical mass economics. But no...they're still protecting their margins. They may not have to be Dell razor thin...but I still think they can do a little better.
Yeesh. All their consumer desktops could do with a 1 gig G4 sticking in them.... 800mhz in a £1600 iMac? ouch... Try 1.2 gig and I may bite...
"3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now."
Partially agreed. A single gig 'K' tower would have been great. I might have been tempted.
"4. The product line is getting muddled, and low end machines are way behind in system speed. The iMac and eMac should have 133 mhz system bus as fast as possible, and no machine should be sold with less than 256 Mb RAM. There should only be 2 models of the eMac, and 2, 3 at most, of the iMac. The eMac's name should be changed to iMac CRT."
Well, Apple's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Moto's their partner. The one they chose. Now they're stuck with 2nd rate specs. I'm fed up whinging about it. It won't be addressed until the G5 hits town..and the towers will compete once more. But even then...consumer PCs will give you more performance than Apple's consumer line.
Until then? Buy the cheapest Mac you can and wait for G5 ie the 'economy'Mac, sorry, 'eMac'...
"5. The tilt and swivel stand should be standard on all eMacs. I mean, comeon, a 17 inch monitor without a stand? An extra $60 for one-please."
Everything's extra with Apple. Check out the Geforce 4 titanium price! It's almost three times the PC price now! Rip off? They could have included it as standard on the top 'power'Mac! Yeesh. And they're buying in bulk. Like Apple on Ram. I love Apple but some of their spec price is unbelievabley cheap and nasty.
"6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades)."
Hmmm. Y'know. I could see the latest 'power'Mac in black. Not the iMac. We're with white and grey for now. The new 'beige'. But hey, it looks an awful lot more stylish than beige. Anyhow. Apple are the white hats. Dell are the black hat computers and are coloured accordingly.
"OK, Flame on."
Human Torch?
Moki, I agreed with your post. You showed a shrewd understanding of Jobs. I don't think Steve Jobs likes 'it' very much at the moment. But yeah, he must have been smilin' inwardly...knowing that Moto's days are numbered. The current spec list seems to indicate that. Apple are doing the best with what they got. It's that simple.
Besides, all the signs are there for the future. I'm sure Jobs does have a next gen' 'wow' machine in the works for his domination of hollywood and workstation graphics plan. It just won't be this year. But...I'm betting it will be next year...sometime. That 64 bit IBM sure looks nice...six times the fpu of the current G4? Yes please!
If you're in the market for an Apple tower then...the low or mid towers are okay. Not great. But okay. (I'd certainly avoid pouring 3 grand into a dual 1.2. Bit of a rip off.) And on some apps...and in overall system OS performance...they'll do fine. If you've played on a top end x86 machine. They won't blow you away. But...if you want the fastest the Mac has to offer...
Overall, I'm too delighted with Apple's recent array of software delights unveiled at Macworld New York to get too p*ssed off about the 'power'Macs. I think they're a good sign...take that what way you will.
<strong>Let's put this in perspective. Steve Jobs sees his return to Apple as a personal quest -- this is his chance to "get it right" and prove to everyone (himself included) that he has the right vision. Steve personally approves or rejects the interface elements that go into Mac OS X; he cares deeply about how his babies are perceived. Indeed a number of high-ups in Apple were chewed out when Mac OS X 10.0 didn't live up to performance expectations that he had.
Why is this relevant? Simply because Steve -- more than anyone else posting here -- is likely quite upset about the current hardware situation. If you think for a moment that he hasn't been extremely pissed off at the situation of being tied to Motorola and their lack of serious interest in competing in the desktop processor arena, then you're quite mistaken.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ. Regardless of what SJ says, he hasn't grow the market share of Apple. So why the hell should MOT put any effort into a super PPC when only Apple profits from it?
<strong>And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're 100% right.
I think anybody'd have done the same. So, SJ might be pissed off like hell for what I care, but he's the first to be blamed for the current Apple HW situation (no more "it's all MOT's fault" bull please, they actually had the best CHRP machine back at MW Boston 1997, but then SJ trashed the clone deal, and that beautiful PowerMax 6000 [IIRC] never saw the light of day).
And anybody knows that SJ's obsession is hardware. Congrats Steve, you ****ed up your IT company for the third time in a row (Apple, NeXT [which was about to sign a huge licensing deal with IBM, but then some SJ dork refused to do it at the last minute, 'cause he was obsessed with his damn black cube], and now Apple once again).
Lots of people should get a clue. SJ in the first place. And then the board of directors, bunch of madmen that actually listen to his rants. Why? They make big money, making us pay 1700 USD for a crappy machine with an even crappier video card. Our fault here...
And if somebody really feels the need to worship something it'd better be some kind of deity, not a 50 year old frustrated hippie.
</bitter rants that nobody will understand anyhow>
I'm with SizzleChest on this one - for those of us that do not upgrade twice a year after every new product announcement, I do not mind paying for better technology. I would like to save money as much as the next guy, but I certainly do not get mad about it. And its not the RDF- I save money for a year or two between new machines - so an extra $100 or so is not something I whine about, especially when I get what I want, and what I am paying for.
Many of you whiners want the "latest and the greatest", but you don't wanna PAY for it. If Apple drops prices, it has to use older and slower components, and THEN you bitch about the performance gap. There truly is no way to win. (That is, until IBM delivers the goods cheaper and better than MOT) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What don't they get?
[quote] 1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. <hr></blockquote>
For the EXACT same model, yes they are, but the new PMs are upgraded a WHOLE LOT.
[quote]2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. <hr></blockquote>
Answer: The 867 Dual. I am a consumer. $1699 for a new Mac would have been insane just a few years ago. I am willing to pay more for better technology.
[quote]3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's. <hr></blockquote>
ONLY to the uninformed and ignorant. The average idiot in a Circuit City may NOT get the Mhz myth, granted. At some point, people start to ask "why would anyone make a computer (PM G4) with so much less clock than this other one (Pent4)- it must work different." Sounds like you may have fallen for the Mhz arguement- hook, line, and sinker.
[quote]4. and 5. and 6. <hr></blockquote>
Sounds like you need to start doing product analysis for Apple. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Apple spends HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars every year in market research. Do you think that Steve just wakes up every day and decides what to offer? NO. There are a LOT of folks like me (Marketing and Research People) that get paid nicely to find out what Apple's consumers want. Most of the time, the market research is right. Ocassionally, SJ gets a pet project like the Cube, which is dispatched handily in the marketplace. The entire line offering is poured over for months in advance, based on profit margins, upcoming hardware and software developments, and what stage the customer base is at.
[quote]6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades). <hr></blockquote>
Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhh! Someone give Stever a bottle!
Apple DOES get it, Stever. And no one is making you buy now, tomorrow, or ever.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Pentiums, that is. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
The towers are _not_ consumer machines. They're professional machines. Dual processor UNIX workstations with applications like Microsoft Office (I know, I know) or Adobe Photoshop or Maya. And all THAT at a great, low price.
If you think Apple should also make towers (so people can choose what monitor to use) for consumers, send them an E-Mail. Marketing wise it's much better to have a clear differentiation between the consumer and pro lines, though. And Apple is doing great there.
I wish they would replace the eMac (consumer, they can keep it for education, where it is a great value machine) with a small white tower without display and sell this for cheap money. A real entry-level Macintosh that would be.
<strong>The towers are _not_ consumer machines. They're professional machines. Dual processor UNIX workstations with applications like Microsoft Office (I know, I know) or Adobe Photoshop or Maya. And all THAT at a great, low price.
If you think Apple should also make towers (so people can choose what monitor to use) for consumers, send them an E-Mail. Marketing wise it's much better to have a clear differentiation between the consumer and pro lines, though. And Apple is doing great there.
I wish they would replace the eMac (consumer, they can keep it for education, where it is a great value machine) with a small white tower without display and sell this for cheap money. A real entry-level Macintosh that would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are u saying the consumer is to stupid to attach a monitor to a tower??
Then tell dell and all the pc manufactures that they are gonna go out of business
The powermac lowend is a great consumer machine and pro machine at a great price.
So, Apple is great at selling all-in-one consumer machines, and that's a fact. What they don't get is that they need to come out with something else (different? better? it depends on what your needs are...) to get hold of that additional 5% market share.
Unfortunately it looks like the market segments Apple is targeting (both in HW and SW) right now are only the consumer (iMac, eMac, iBook, all the iApps) and the highly specialized video/photo editing (FCP, Shake, et alia).
Not exactly what I'd call "mainstream". A niche company that tries to get hold of another niche, ending up being a slightly bigger niche company... Yup, nice (or is it "niche"? ) strategy Steve... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
So an all in one computer that does everything a pro machine does and all the iApps making everythign easier is a machine for a niche market? So the general population is a niche market?
>I agree. I also agree that Apple, despite what they and others say, has a finite amount of sales per year. I believe that they realize this and attempt, like any good company should, to maximize profits. Low cost and expandable Macs WILL cannibalize Powermac sales and the Powermac line is where the money is. For Apple to gain marketshare it's going to have to be a long drawn out process. Cutting the profit out of your company will only delay that process or halt it altogether.
The PowerMac target market is graphics and video professionals. They don't care as much about price and tend to go for the 2 higher end models anyway. A cheaper consumer oriented tower would cut into iMac and eMac sales, but would ADD new customers as well. Thats what its all about. 10% market share without a consumer tower won't happen...................
<strong>Apple doesn't get it? How is it they still successfully sell all-in-one computers in large quantities, whereas every PC manufacturer who tried failed dismally?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because PC makers have low priced towers to sell as well, and people WANT TOWERS. That actually proved my point right there. It doesn't matter that many people in our little niche love all in ones (although I believe it is because the aura of Jobs deemed it so), many, many people just do not.
To not give consumers the choice of an affordable tower is quite foolish. Those people will continue to buy wintels en masse. Gamers especially, who can get or build a powerful PC for a lot less than $1699............................................. ....
Many of you whiners want the "latest and the greatest", but you don't wanna PAY for it. If Apple drops prices, it has to use older and slower components, and THEN you bitch about the performance gap. There truly is no way to win. (That is, until IBM delivers the goods cheaper and better than MOT) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What don't they get?
Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhh! Someone give Stever a bottle!
Apple DOES get it, Stever. And no one is making you buy now, tomorrow, or ever.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Pentiums, that is. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I shouldn't have to be 'made' to buy a product, I should want it so badly that I rip out my wallet and order it right now. Ain't happening. Why? Because Apple isn't giving me what I want. Me and who knows how many customers that they are losing out on.
Market research? Laughable. Their idea of market research is asking Jobs if its OK to go ahead with what they have. Everyone knows Apple does not do market research or focus groups, unless you consider a swelled head coming out of a black turtleneck sweater a focus group.
You don't mind spending $1700 on a tower? Congradulations. Many of us don't have that kind of money.
As for the idiots who shop at Circuit City-if Apple doesn't go after those idiots, then where does the increased market share come from?
Most of us here know more than the average Joe, but most consumers go by what they read and perceive. A strong company realizes this and acts accordingly....................................... ......
<strong>And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ. Regardless of what SJ says, he hasn't grow the market share of Apple. So why the hell should MOT put any effort into a super PPC when only Apple profits from it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has actually been my exact speculation as well.
Because PC makers have low priced towers to sell as well, and people WANT TOWERS. That actually proved my point right there. It doesn't matter that many people in our little niche love all in ones (although I believe it is because the aura of Jobs deemed it so), many, many people just do not.
To not give consumers the choice of an affordable tower is quite foolish. Those people will continue to buy wintels en masse. Gamers especially, who can get or build a powerful PC for a lot less than $1699............................................. ....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have any facts to back up that assertion that people (assuming people in general, the general non-power hungry non-gaming public) WANT TOWERS?
Why?
What on earth is the average consumer going to do with a tower that they can't do with an all-in-one?
The only things I can think of off the top of my head are upgrading the video card (which over 90% of all computer purchasers never do), upgrading the CPU (ditto), or adding PCI boards. Of course, then you have to ask what PCI boards they're adding... oh, right... FireWire, for one, Gigabit Ethernet for another, etc, etc.
Towers are utterly *wasted* on most people. The only reason they buy them is because that's all that is offered to them by most manufacturers.
Parable: Italian train commission decides to determine if a 3pm run should be added to the Pisa/Naples route. So they send a representative to the Pisa platform at 3pm to find out how many people are waiting for a train to Naples. The answer is zero, so they decide that no 3pm route is needed.
I'll let you figure out the relationship to your argument.
<strong>I shouldn't have to be 'made' to buy a product, I should want it so badly that I rip out my wallet and order it right now. Ain't happening. Why? Because Apple isn't giving me what I want. Me and who knows how many customers that they are losing out on.</strong><hr></blockquote>Just like Apple doesn't exist merely for SJ, they don't just exist for you. What would you like to see anyway? Have you sent in a feedback form? They read them, you know? A large number of changes in 10.2 came as a direct result of user feedback online. [quote]<strong>
Market research? Laughable. Their idea of market research is asking Jobs if its OK to go ahead with what they have. Everyone knows Apple does not do market research or focus groups, unless you consider a swelled head coming out of a black turtleneck sweater a focus group.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, they seem to be good at selling all-in-one computers where noone else has succeeded. They must be doing _something_ right. [quote]<strong>You don't mind spending $1700 on a tower? Congradulations. Many of us don't have that kind of money.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, I do, and i have a crap, low-paying job, but then, I don't smoke, drink or go out...if you want to be rich, don't spend any money [quote]<strong>As for the idiots who shop at Circuit City-if Apple doesn't go after those idiots, then where does the increased market share come from?</strong><hr></blockquote>The "idiots" you describe enjoy screwing around with their computers. Mac users generally buy a machine that they can plug in and it does the job, with the minimum of ****ing around. How many PC owners do you know who don't have multiple machines, half of them in pieces because they don't work proplerly? [quote]<strong>Most of us here know more than the average Joe, but most consumers go by what they read and perceive. A strong company realizes this and acts accordingly</strong><hr></blockquote>And they believe that "there aren't as many apps for macs as there are for PC's and come into the shop wanting to know if an iMac has a word processor on it and if it will work with their local DSL provider.
The fact is, most of what is getting repeated on here is "Only a .25ghz upgrade?!?! Oh, no, I'm not saying Mhz matters or anything...".
<strong>..be able to upgrade the video card- for starters.
..thats the single biggest problem with the integrateds</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I stated above, the *vast* majority of purchasers never do.
Gamers, yes.
Graphics/video folk, yes.
Mom & pop running Word, checking email and surfing the web? No.
The first two groups are well served with a tower, but for the third, it's a waste. And the third group is the only one that would even remotely be interested in a $999 tower form in the first place.
I like being able to hide a tower under my desk. That way, my desktop has a monitor and my scanner, and I have plenty of space to do my stuff.
What if some mondo excellent PCI hardware that allowed you to connect to a VR headset with datagloves to interact with your computer, instead of a mouse + keyboard. You're kinda SOL if you have one of those all-in-ones.
My point is, you never know what is around the corner in the world of tech. PCI slots help to future-proof your machine. Even if you (for some reason) never install a new PCI card in the life of the machine, the peace of mind that it's available is what appeals to people.
On every computer that I've owned, I've added at least one extra card to it. That's why I personally want a computer with expandability.
Most drivers never use their Airbags either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank God for that!
Expandability can be overrated. Remember the problem with PCI cards preventing Macs from going into sleep mode? Anytime you add some PCI HW from a different company you risk affecting your computer in some ways. I'm kind of glad many of the essential items are integrated into the MB.
I want a low cost Mac with a tad of expandability as well but I realize until Apple doubles it's computer shipments I shouldn't be suprised to see them adding in a lil planned obsolesence.
Comments
Apple get alot of things...software wise and design wise. In this respect. I don't think they have any peers. Not even Sony. Sony don't really...'think different.' Apple? You talk their current software Jag' with Rendevous etc? Free iapps? QExtreme? Stunning. Design? Stunning. And I don't believe the current eMac or 'power'Mac are the design slips people think they are. My opinion.
However, hardware and its respective demographics?
Apple have got some problems. They're missing people and the specs? Let's be polite. They're doing the 'best' with what they've got.
"1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. Yes, I know the iMac is BACK to where it started. However, the base G4 tower is back UP to its previous $1699 price. Yes, it has more power, but it is still the lowest priced tower Apple offers, which leads to:"
But lets get something straight here. Give Dell some credit. With a PC market saturated...Dell are still selling many millions upon millions more computers than Apple are. TO A SATURATED MARKET!!!
Apple would do well to slave this last sacred cow. Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap. The reduction of the iMac...twice in a little while now is a positive sign.
The low end flat is now £1,049 inc Vat. Not bad.
But they'd got to get in under the 'K' in my mind. Computers are £2 - 3 K anymore. They're 1 K give or take a hundredS.
If they 'get' this. They may make it to 10%.
Speaking of which...Apple's engineer did a Macworld interview...and the things he said about Apple needing options in each price bracket to reach people who otherwise wouldn't get to you were enlightening and positive for the future. As are Apple's plans to increase their spending in Taiwan on components to make their machines more price competitive. Computers are going to get cheaper and cheaper.
For a long time...many moons ago...we didn't even have a Mac under a K in the UK! It seams like heaven compared to that now!
Apple must have been aware of what the 17 inch widescreen iMac was going to do to their low end 'power'Mac. Hence the dual processor revival. Born of necessity. If they had 1.6? They'd ship that. In dual. I liked the dual strat' originally. Good move and popular with pundits, analysts and reviewers. But with 2 gig Pentiums for under £500...well, you could argue that Apple is in a tight corner. They had to do something.
Even so. I still think the 'power'Macs are pricey. But a Unix guy after a dual processor machine? He might be in heaven...
"2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. There are tons of folks who just do not want an all in one machine. There is no consumer level upgradeable tower available for $1299, or the sweet spot of $999. Market share will NOT grow simply because of the iMac or even the eMac. Apple is foolishly ignoring a large market, the largest actually."
I agree with alot of the sentiment here. I feel Apple does need a £999 inc Vat tower. A single gig machine with Geforce 4 Mx. I'd buy. What I won't buy is a dual 1.2 gig for almost £3000 with a budget graphics card (the Radeon '9000' is nothing of the kind...it aint bad...but...) It's outrageously overpriced.
I don't think towers are essential. Dell's getting by with the 'desktop' on its side form factor. Apple prove you can pack nifty power in different designs.
However, a cheap tower under a K would get Apple sales. It's a market that sells a plenty on PC land. I'm sure many people wanting a tower look at the 'power' Macs and think...'pewwww... the price!!!' Apple are missing the extra sales it needs to get that 10% Steve wants.
Their current market grid is too rigid. Apple are making profits. I'll concede. But 'power'Mac sales are going down...and down. I don't think this update will offer anymore than a reprieve. Put a tower under a K and that may change.
For a moment with the original iMac...I thought Apple had finally learned the law of critical mass economics. But no...they're still protecting their margins. They may not have to be Dell razor thin...but I still think they can do a little better.
Yeesh. All their consumer desktops could do with a 1 gig G4 sticking in them.... 800mhz in a £1600 iMac? ouch... Try 1.2 gig and I may bite...
"3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's.
The low end tower should have been a single G4 1Ghz with combo drive for $1299. Still higher than a comparable PC, but much closer than it is now."
Partially agreed. A single gig 'K' tower would have been great. I might have been tempted.
"4. The product line is getting muddled, and low end machines are way behind in system speed. The iMac and eMac should have 133 mhz system bus as fast as possible, and no machine should be sold with less than 256 Mb RAM. There should only be 2 models of the eMac, and 2, 3 at most, of the iMac. The eMac's name should be changed to iMac CRT."
Well, Apple's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Moto's their partner. The one they chose. Now they're stuck with 2nd rate specs. I'm fed up whinging about it. It won't be addressed until the G5 hits town..and the towers will compete once more. But even then...consumer PCs will give you more performance than Apple's consumer line.
Until then? Buy the cheapest Mac you can and wait for G5
"5. The tilt and swivel stand should be standard on all eMacs. I mean, comeon, a 17 inch monitor without a stand? An extra $60 for one-please."
Everything's extra with Apple. Check out the Geforce 4 titanium price! It's almost three times the PC price now! Rip off? They could have included it as standard on the top 'power'Mac! Yeesh. And they're buying in bulk. Like Apple on Ram. I love Apple but some of their spec price is unbelievabley cheap and nasty.
"6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades)."
Hmmm. Y'know. I could see the latest 'power'Mac in black. Not the iMac. We're with white and grey for now. The new 'beige'. But hey, it looks an awful lot more stylish than beige. Anyhow. Apple are the white hats. Dell are the black hat computers and are coloured accordingly.
"OK, Flame on."
Human Torch?
Moki, I agreed with your post. You showed a shrewd understanding of Jobs. I don't think Steve Jobs likes 'it' very much at the moment. But yeah, he must have been smilin' inwardly...knowing that Moto's days are numbered. The current spec list seems to indicate that. Apple are doing the best with what they got. It's that simple.
Besides, all the signs are there for the future. I'm sure Jobs does have a next gen' 'wow' machine in the works for his domination of hollywood and workstation graphics plan. It just won't be this year. But...I'm betting it will be next year...sometime. That 64 bit IBM sure looks nice...six times the fpu of the current G4? Yes please!
If you're in the market for an Apple tower then...the low or mid towers are okay. Not great. But okay. (I'd certainly avoid pouring 3 grand into a dual 1.2. Bit of a rip off.) And on some apps...and in overall system OS performance...they'll do fine. If you've played on a top end x86 machine. They won't blow you away. But...if you want the fastest the Mac has to offer...
Overall, I'm too delighted with Apple's recent array of software delights unveiled at Macworld New York to get too p*ssed off about the 'power'Macs. I think they're a good sign...take that what way you will.
But I won't be buying this time.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Let's put this in perspective. Steve Jobs sees his return to Apple as a personal quest -- this is his chance to "get it right" and prove to everyone (himself included) that he has the right vision. Steve personally approves or rejects the interface elements that go into Mac OS X; he cares deeply about how his babies are perceived. Indeed a number of high-ups in Apple were chewed out when Mac OS X 10.0 didn't live up to performance expectations that he had.
Why is this relevant? Simply because Steve -- more than anyone else posting here -- is likely quite upset about the current hardware situation. If you think for a moment that he hasn't been extremely pissed off at the situation of being tied to Motorola and their lack of serious interest in competing in the desktop processor arena, then you're quite mistaken.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ. Regardless of what SJ says, he hasn't grow the market share of Apple. So why the hell should MOT put any effort into a super PPC when only Apple profits from it?
End of Line
[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: User Tron ]</p>
<strong>And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're 100% right.
I think anybody'd have done the same. So, SJ might be pissed off like hell for what I care, but he's the first to be blamed for the current Apple HW situation (no more "it's all MOT's fault" bull please, they actually had the best CHRP machine back at MW Boston 1997, but then SJ trashed the clone deal, and that beautiful PowerMax 6000 [IIRC] never saw the light of day).
And anybody knows that SJ's obsession is hardware. Congrats Steve, you ****ed up your IT company for the third time in a row (Apple, NeXT [which was about to sign a huge licensing deal with IBM, but then some SJ dork refused to do it at the last minute, 'cause he was obsessed with his damn black cube], and now Apple once again).
Lots of people should get a clue. SJ in the first place. And then the board of directors, bunch of madmen that actually listen to his rants. Why? They make big money, making us pay 1700 USD for a crappy machine with an even crappier video card. Our fault here...
And if somebody really feels the need to worship something it'd better be some kind of deity, not a 50 year old frustrated hippie.
</bitter rants that nobody will understand anyhow>
ZoSo
Many of you whiners want the "latest and the greatest", but you don't wanna PAY for it. If Apple drops prices, it has to use older and slower components, and THEN you bitch about the performance gap. There truly is no way to win. (That is, until IBM delivers the goods cheaper and better than MOT) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What don't they get?
[quote] 1. Computer prices are supposed to go DOWN, not up. <hr></blockquote>
For the EXACT same model, yes they are, but the new PMs are upgraded a WHOLE LOT.
[quote]2. Apple STILL doesn't have a consumer priced tower. <hr></blockquote>
Answer: The 867 Dual. I am a consumer. $1699 for a new Mac would have been insane just a few years ago. I am willing to pay more for better technology.
[quote]3. Apple shouldn't even put out a model below 1Ghz. It looks ridiculous compared to wintels regardless of how much faster G4's are the P4's. <hr></blockquote>
ONLY to the uninformed and ignorant. The average idiot in a Circuit City may NOT get the Mhz myth, granted. At some point, people start to ask "why would anyone make a computer (PM G4) with so much less clock than this other one (Pent4)- it must work different." Sounds like you may have fallen for the Mhz arguement- hook, line, and sinker.
[quote]4. and 5. and 6. <hr></blockquote>
Sounds like you need to start doing product analysis for Apple. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Apple spends HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars every year in market research. Do you think that Steve just wakes up every day and decides what to offer? NO. There are a LOT of folks like me (Marketing and Research People) that get paid nicely to find out what Apple's consumers want. Most of the time, the market research is right. Ocassionally, SJ gets a pet project like the Cube, which is dispatched handily in the marketplace. The entire line offering is poured over for months in advance, based on profit margins, upcoming hardware and software developments, and what stage the customer base is at.
[quote]6. There should be black versions of the iMac and eMac. If, in buying an all in one, we are forced to go with an Apple built in display, we should have at least a choice of 2 colors(ok, shades). <hr></blockquote>
Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhh! Someone give Stever a bottle!
Apple DOES get it, Stever. And no one is making you buy now, tomorrow, or ever.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Pentiums, that is. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
If you think Apple should also make towers (so people can choose what monitor to use) for consumers, send them an E-Mail. Marketing wise it's much better to have a clear differentiation between the consumer and pro lines, though. And Apple is doing great there.
I wish they would replace the eMac (consumer, they can keep it for education, where it is a great value machine) with a small white tower without display and sell this for cheap money. A real entry-level Macintosh that would be.
<strong>The towers are _not_ consumer machines. They're professional machines. Dual processor UNIX workstations with applications like Microsoft Office (I know, I know) or Adobe Photoshop or Maya. And all THAT at a great, low price.
If you think Apple should also make towers (so people can choose what monitor to use) for consumers, send them an E-Mail. Marketing wise it's much better to have a clear differentiation between the consumer and pro lines, though. And Apple is doing great there.
I wish they would replace the eMac (consumer, they can keep it for education, where it is a great value machine) with a small white tower without display and sell this for cheap money. A real entry-level Macintosh that would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are u saying the consumer is to stupid to attach a monitor to a tower??
Then tell dell and all the pc manufactures that they are gonna go out of business
The powermac lowend is a great consumer machine and pro machine at a great price.
<strong>
So, Apple is great at selling all-in-one consumer machines, and that's a fact. What they don't get is that they need to come out with something else (different? better? it depends on what your needs are...) to get hold of that additional 5% market share.
Unfortunately it looks like the market segments Apple is targeting (both in HW and SW) right now are only the consumer (iMac, eMac, iBook, all the iApps) and the highly specialized video/photo editing (FCP, Shake, et alia).
Not exactly what I'd call "mainstream". A niche company that tries to get hold of another niche, ending up being a slightly bigger niche company... Yup, nice (or is it "niche"?
ZoSo
[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
'
So an all in one computer that does everything a pro machine does and all the iApps making everythign easier is a machine for a niche market? So the general population is a niche market?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PowerMac target market is graphics and video professionals. They don't care as much about price and tend to go for the 2 higher end models anyway. A cheaper consumer oriented tower would cut into iMac and eMac sales, but would ADD new customers as well. Thats what its all about. 10% market share without a consumer tower won't happen...................
<strong>Apple doesn't get it? How is it they still successfully sell all-in-one computers in large quantities, whereas every PC manufacturer who tried failed dismally?
Because PC makers have low priced towers to sell as well, and people WANT TOWERS. That actually proved my point right there. It doesn't matter that many people in our little niche love all in ones (although I believe it is because the aura of Jobs deemed it so), many, many people just do not.
To not give consumers the choice of an affordable tower is quite foolish. Those people will continue to buy wintels en masse. Gamers especially, who can get or build a powerful PC for a lot less than $1699............................................. ....
Many of you whiners want the "latest and the greatest", but you don't wanna PAY for it. If Apple drops prices, it has to use older and slower components, and THEN you bitch about the performance gap. There truly is no way to win. (That is, until IBM delivers the goods cheaper and better than MOT) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What don't they get?
Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhh! Someone give Stever a bottle!
Apple DOES get it, Stever. And no one is making you buy now, tomorrow, or ever.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Pentiums, that is. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I shouldn't have to be 'made' to buy a product, I should want it so badly that I rip out my wallet and order it right now. Ain't happening. Why? Because Apple isn't giving me what I want. Me and who knows how many customers that they are losing out on.
Market research? Laughable. Their idea of market research is asking Jobs if its OK to go ahead with what they have. Everyone knows Apple does not do market research or focus groups, unless you consider a swelled head coming out of a black turtleneck sweater a focus group.
You don't mind spending $1700 on a tower? Congradulations. Many of us don't have that kind of money.
As for the idiots who shop at Circuit City-if Apple doesn't go after those idiots, then where does the increased market share come from?
Most of us here know more than the average Joe, but most consumers go by what they read and perceive. A strong company realizes this and acts accordingly....................................... ......
<strong>And why did MOT lose their interest in the desktop area? Because SJ suddenly decided to kill the clones, hence destroy all of MOT's efforts in this area. The whole future of the PPC was in jeopardy, so MOT did the right business desicions: cut down all investments and don't trust SJ. Regardless of what SJ says, he hasn't grow the market share of Apple. So why the hell should MOT put any effort into a super PPC when only Apple profits from it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has actually been my exact speculation as well.
<strong>
Because PC makers have low priced towers to sell as well, and people WANT TOWERS. That actually proved my point right there. It doesn't matter that many people in our little niche love all in ones (although I believe it is because the aura of Jobs deemed it so), many, many people just do not.
To not give consumers the choice of an affordable tower is quite foolish. Those people will continue to buy wintels en masse. Gamers especially, who can get or build a powerful PC for a lot less than $1699............................................. ....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have any facts to back up that assertion that people (assuming people in general, the general non-power hungry non-gaming public) WANT TOWERS?
Why?
What on earth is the average consumer going to do with a tower that they can't do with an all-in-one?
The only things I can think of off the top of my head are upgrading the video card (which over 90% of all computer purchasers never do), upgrading the CPU (ditto), or adding PCI boards. Of course, then you have to ask what PCI boards they're adding... oh, right... FireWire, for one, Gigabit Ethernet for another, etc, etc.
Towers are utterly *wasted* on most people. The only reason they buy them is because that's all that is offered to them by most manufacturers.
Parable: Italian train commission decides to determine if a 3pm run should be added to the Pisa/Naples route. So they send a representative to the Pisa platform at 3pm to find out how many people are waiting for a train to Naples. The answer is zero, so they decide that no 3pm route is needed.
I'll let you figure out the relationship to your argument.
..thats the single biggest problem with the integrateds
<strong>I shouldn't have to be 'made' to buy a product, I should want it so badly that I rip out my wallet and order it right now. Ain't happening. Why? Because Apple isn't giving me what I want. Me and who knows how many customers that they are losing out on.</strong><hr></blockquote>Just like Apple doesn't exist merely for SJ, they don't just exist for you. What would you like to see anyway? Have you sent in a feedback form? They read them, you know? A large number of changes in 10.2 came as a direct result of user feedback online. [quote]<strong>
Market research? Laughable. Their idea of market research is asking Jobs if its OK to go ahead with what they have. Everyone knows Apple does not do market research or focus groups, unless you consider a swelled head coming out of a black turtleneck sweater a focus group.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, they seem to be good at selling all-in-one computers where noone else has succeeded. They must be doing _something_ right. [quote]<strong>You don't mind spending $1700 on a tower? Congradulations. Many of us don't have that kind of money.</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, I do, and i have a crap, low-paying job, but then, I don't smoke, drink or go out...if you want to be rich, don't spend any money
The fact is, most of what is getting repeated on here is "Only a .25ghz upgrade?!?! Oh, no, I'm not saying Mhz matters or anything...".
<strong>..be able to upgrade the video card- for starters.
..thats the single biggest problem with the integrateds</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I stated above, the *vast* majority of purchasers never do.
Gamers, yes.
Graphics/video folk, yes.
Mom & pop running Word, checking email and surfing the web? No.
The first two groups are well served with a tower, but for the third, it's a waste. And the third group is the only one that would even remotely be interested in a $999 tower form in the first place.
What if some mondo excellent PCI hardware that allowed you to connect to a VR headset with datagloves to interact with your computer, instead of a mouse + keyboard. You're kinda SOL if you have one of those all-in-ones.
My point is, you never know what is around the corner in the world of tech. PCI slots help to future-proof your machine. Even if you (for some reason) never install a new PCI card in the life of the machine, the peace of mind that it's available is what appeals to people.
On every computer that I've owned, I've added at least one extra card to it. That's why I personally want a computer with expandability.
<strong>
As I stated above, the *vast* majority of purchasers never do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most drivers never use their Airbags either.
<strong>
Most drivers never use their Airbags either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank God for that!
Expandability can be overrated. Remember the problem with PCI cards preventing Macs from going into sleep mode? Anytime you add some PCI HW from a different company you risk affecting your computer in some ways. I'm kind of glad many of the essential items are integrated into the MB.
I want a low cost Mac with a tad of expandability as well but I realize until Apple doubles it's computer shipments I shouldn't be suprised to see them adding in a lil planned obsolesence.
<strong>
Most drivers never use their Airbags either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're suggesting that being able to upgrade a video card will save you in the event of a crash?