<strong>- The person who originally challenged me on that is Johnny Dangerously, his profile would strongly suggest he would have access to those Apple Service resources</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should, but I'm not a tech. I'll tentatively take your word on it, as I've not checked the recent CRT iMacs. The eMacs, though, are supposed to be Mitsubishi. So I've been told by many @ Apple.
<strong> [quote]- An Apple rep told a presentation to resellers in early 2001 after the introduction of the G4's with nvidia cards, that those cards were made by LeadTek, maybe Apple has changed suppliers in the interm. But at the time he was very insistant that they were LeadTek</strong><hr></blockquote>
It looks like you've had something change on you, too, as I've had the CRTs change on me. Maybe we should shake hands and admit our faults....
<strong> [quote]- At the moment sales of Macs are very slow, we have not sold an LCD iMac since September, the G4 tower and powerbook are also selling very slow. However the iBook is still selling well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerBooks and eMacs are slow here; towers are going okay. For some reason (customers living under rocks, maybe?), the 17" iMac is just now selling well (very well indeed), and the iPod and iBook are always "count-on-me" top sellers.
OK, I just have to note something. Look through the other threads open and people are hotly arguing over the iBook being too far behind and the rumored update not being enough ... and then you guys are both saying it is a top seller ... this is nuts.
The iBook proves the thesis that when Apple is price competitive with contemporary PC's they can sell their hardware. I see the same dynamic with the xserve, although Apple still has to repair their entireprise server credibility after the Apple Network Server fiasco back in 1997.
The 700mhz iBook has a nice fast IBM G3 with 512KB of Cache, it has no trouble matching the Celeron and low end Pentium 4's used in consumer laptops, it has a good display, a good videocard, and is pretty well designed. And when used with Mac OS 9 it is very quick.
Obviously, I would love to see an iBook with a nice fast 1ghz IBM G3, but we have no real complaints about it in it's current form, at the moment any Apple system I can order on spec and know is going to sell is a good thing.
The problem arises when Apple tries to charge more than double or triple the price of a much faster Windows system, such is the case with the iMac, eMac and Power Mac.
The issue of "Stagflation" only comes up after the price
I recall reading that Apple has scarcely sold 5700 Xserves, total to date, from an AtAT episode of a few days ago. Will they keep at it? I hope so, they need to offer complete top to bottom solutions if they hope to make any headway in business or edu, so we'll see. But they ain't exactly setting sales records with that thing.
Actually Matsu their sales are very impressive, they have increased their market share in the server market by around 280%. That is very impressive since this is the first real server Apple has ever offered. The most important thing is that it indicates that a large number of customers were interested in an alternative to what was available, that bodes well for the new guy.
Calling a Power Mac a server just because it has a SCSI card and AppleShare IP installed isn't really very accurate. The Xserve is a strong and innovated server solution and it is Apple's first real one. Also we should remember that when the Xserve was announced Apple also stated they would release a FireWire based network storage RAID solution. In the past Apple always pushed hard and fast into business and always failed, now they are being calculated and planning their efforts. I think it will bear fruit.
The xserve isn't Apple's first real server, they have had several server efforts in the past however Apple has either lost interest or killed the project on a whim.
Apple's last server adventure was the Apple Network Server, an IBM AIX based family of systems, they were great machines.
And Apple actually signed up some pretty high profile customers, however when Steve Jobs took over he killed them on a whim.
Which went over about as well as charging for .Mac, the price bump of the LCD iMac and the speed dump of the original G4.
So Apple really has alot of work to do when it comes to restoring their reputation because they really burned their Apple Network Server customers who probably haven't forgotten.
Since its widely known and accepted that Apple has never been respected or successful in the business server market just who were these high profile customers and where can I read up on all the server and enterprise success that Jobs killed off?
Oh and when Jobs returned in 1996 Apple wasn't selling A/UX [the AIX like UNIX you refer to] it was selling a 9600 running AppleShare IP.
imac's (15" and 17") and ipods are selling good here in swizerland.
i don't notice more failed drives with the new units.
some "dead on arrivals" with the optical-drive doors in the new small ibook (doors mechanicaly will not open).
my opinions - to get back on topic:
comparing wintel against mac is not easy.
a mac is a "out-of-the-box" computer with everything in/on it that most people use.
you can't just compair hardware (although, i think mac's have better hardware) - it's the software, too.
what good is a tool if it's difficult to use for most people? nothing.
most people don't want anything to do with their systemsoftware (just install and forget) - with a mac running os x they get a rock solid os with a easy-to-use and beautiful gui.
most people just want to "try to make a movie" - with a mac and imovie they get great results in short time.
most people just want to communicate - with mail, ichat, address book, ical etc it's easy
Humm, emotions have cooled off a bit so perhaps it's time to get my two cents in ...
Only talking from personal experience, I agree with Steve about the quality level of some of Apple's hardware has dropped down a good notch or two ... and may I add that I find it to be not necessarily a bad thing. Before turning on the flames let me explain.
Apple has always been a high class act and its client base was, and for the most part still is, an elitist club (come on you guys, I'm willing to confess). Apple's hardware was on par, for example the Mac II series were solid hunks of steel filled with Appletalk, SCSI, Trinitron, you name it, all top notch. High prices added to the allure.
As we all know, Apple was dying and SJ turned things around. The original iMac was a big part of that, not only in form but also in concept. It looks playful, was made for the proletarian masses. But while the solid Mac reputation carried on, IMHO there was a change inside as well. Call it purchasing strategy, call it extending profit margins, call it whatever you want, the hardware got cheaper. How much cheaper is difficult to say, the electronics are still far from what you find in a $5 watch, but nevertheless Apple is playing the same PC supplier game to get the most bang out of their buck.
Why is cheaper hardware better? For Apple's bottom line it is obvious, but I was thinking more on our side of the picture. Lower your expectations? Learn to humble yourself while customer service keeps you on hold? Perhaps. Opening the club doors does require a different mindset. But getting back to that $5 watch, the odd thing about it is that it keeps great time ... yet nobody cares. Our relation with watches and time has changed, but our relation with Macs and how we use them has not, or at least not to the same extent.
For example: IMHO the hardware in the towers has stayed at a relatively high level of quality in contrast to the iMacs. Greater choice and better match between the product and the user is the result. Another example: accepting a larger variation in hardware quality provides greater conponent standardization. Third example: lowering hardware quality standards allows greater R&D risk taking to introduce new technologies (less of a polished look but more possibilities).
True, the $5 Mac is not upon us yet ... the world has a way to go to become a perfect place.
Comments
<strong>- The person who originally challenged me on that is Johnny Dangerously, his profile would strongly suggest he would have access to those Apple Service resources</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should, but I'm not a tech. I'll tentatively take your word on it, as I've not checked the recent CRT iMacs. The eMacs, though, are supposed to be Mitsubishi. So I've been told by many @ Apple.
<strong> [quote]- An Apple rep told a presentation to resellers in early 2001 after the introduction of the G4's with nvidia cards, that those cards were made by LeadTek, maybe Apple has changed suppliers in the interm. But at the time he was very insistant that they were LeadTek</strong><hr></blockquote>
It looks like you've had something change on you, too, as I've had the CRTs change on me. Maybe we should shake hands and admit our faults....
<strong> [quote]- At the moment sales of Macs are very slow, we have not sold an LCD iMac since September, the G4 tower and powerbook are also selling very slow. However the iBook is still selling well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerBooks and eMacs are slow here; towers are going okay. For some reason (customers living under rocks, maybe?), the 17" iMac is just now selling well (very well indeed), and the iPod and iBook are always "count-on-me" top sellers.
- Johnny Dangerously
The 700mhz iBook has a nice fast IBM G3 with 512KB of Cache, it has no trouble matching the Celeron and low end Pentium 4's used in consumer laptops, it has a good display, a good videocard, and is pretty well designed. And when used with Mac OS 9 it is very quick.
Obviously, I would love to see an iBook with a nice fast 1ghz IBM G3, but we have no real complaints about it in it's current form, at the moment any Apple system I can order on spec and know is going to sell is a good thing.
The problem arises when Apple tries to charge more than double or triple the price of a much faster Windows system, such is the case with the iMac, eMac and Power Mac.
The issue of "Stagflation" only comes up after the price
<strong>So Visiontek is certainly under the impression that Apple is a customer of theirs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were over a year ago.
Calling a Power Mac a server just because it has a SCSI card and AppleShare IP installed isn't really very accurate. The Xserve is a strong and innovated server solution and it is Apple's first real one. Also we should remember that when the Xserve was announced Apple also stated they would release a FireWire based network storage RAID solution. In the past Apple always pushed hard and fast into business and always failed, now they are being calculated and planning their efforts. I think it will bear fruit.
Apple's last server adventure was the Apple Network Server, an IBM AIX based family of systems, they were great machines.
And Apple actually signed up some pretty high profile customers, however when Steve Jobs took over he killed them on a whim.
Which went over about as well as charging for .Mac, the price bump of the LCD iMac and the speed dump of the original G4.
So Apple really has alot of work to do when it comes to restoring their reputation because they really burned their Apple Network Server customers who probably haven't forgotten.
Oh and when Jobs returned in 1996 Apple wasn't selling A/UX [the AIX like UNIX you refer to] it was selling a 9600 running AppleShare IP.
<strong>I recall reading that Apple has scarcely sold 5700 Xserves, total to date, from an AtAT episode of a few days ago..</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they sold 5,700 servers last quarter.
Apple breifly supported MKLinux, but that is a whole other story.
The Apple Network Servers were IBM AIX based servers, pretty good machines, we still have an Apple Network Server 500 running our Website and email.
They were basically IBM RS/6000's, just alot less expensive than the IBM equipment,
The reason the Apple Network Server had consiterable credibility is because IBM was standing behind Apple on them,
I know Apple had signed up The BonMarche, a major HMO, some universities and a newspaper chain in Canada when it was killed.
I guess Steve doesn't like AIX
<strong>
No, they sold 5,700 servers last quarter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ooops, my bad, but still not exactly setting sales records with such numbers...
i don't notice more failed drives with the new units.
some "dead on arrivals" with the optical-drive doors in the new small ibook (doors mechanicaly will not open).
my opinions - to get back on topic:
comparing wintel against mac is not easy.
a mac is a "out-of-the-box" computer with everything in/on it that most people use.
you can't just compair hardware (although, i think mac's have better hardware) - it's the software, too.
what good is a tool if it's difficult to use for most people? nothing.
most people don't want anything to do with their systemsoftware (just install and forget) - with a mac running os x they get a rock solid os with a easy-to-use and beautiful gui.
most people just want to "try to make a movie" - with a mac and imovie they get great results in short time.
most people just want to communicate - with mail, ichat, address book, ical etc it's easy
take points like these into your comparison.
<strong>
I guess Steve doesn't like AIX</strong><hr></blockquote>
And AIX 5L doesn't even know who Steve is.
Only talking from personal experience, I agree with Steve about the quality level of some of Apple's hardware has dropped down a good notch or two ... and may I add that I find it to be not necessarily a bad thing. Before turning on the flames let me explain.
Apple has always been a high class act and its client base was, and for the most part still is, an elitist club (come on you guys, I'm willing to confess). Apple's hardware was on par, for example the Mac II series were solid hunks of steel filled with Appletalk, SCSI, Trinitron, you name it, all top notch. High prices added to the allure.
As we all know, Apple was dying and SJ turned things around. The original iMac was a big part of that, not only in form but also in concept. It looks playful, was made for the proletarian masses. But while the solid Mac reputation carried on, IMHO there was a change inside as well. Call it purchasing strategy, call it extending profit margins, call it whatever you want, the hardware got cheaper. How much cheaper is difficult to say, the electronics are still far from what you find in a $5 watch, but nevertheless Apple is playing the same PC supplier game to get the most bang out of their buck.
Why is cheaper hardware better? For Apple's bottom line it is obvious, but I was thinking more on our side of the picture. Lower your expectations? Learn to humble yourself while customer service keeps you on hold? Perhaps. Opening the club doors does require a different mindset. But getting back to that $5 watch, the odd thing about it is that it keeps great time ... yet nobody cares. Our relation with watches and time has changed, but our relation with Macs and how we use them has not, or at least not to the same extent.
For example: IMHO the hardware in the towers has stayed at a relatively high level of quality in contrast to the iMacs. Greater choice and better match between the product and the user is the result. Another example: accepting a larger variation in hardware quality provides greater conponent standardization. Third example: lowering hardware quality standards allows greater R&D risk taking to introduce new technologies (less of a polished look but more possibilities).
True, the $5 Mac is not upon us yet ... the world has a way to go to become a perfect place.