Apple's 10-K Filing [Archive]

dricci

Dec 20, 2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by hesdeadjim

While it's not a tower, the eMac is in the sub-1000 range and it's sales aren't humongous. The truth is that it is hard to sell computers to people who can barely tell the difference from RAM or hard drive memory (you will be suprised how many people I know who say they have 20 gigs of ram) when they look at a PC at similar prices with 1.5 ghz. Now, I don't want to start a debate on the speed issues, but consumers really don't know the difference.

Yes, but the fact remains that many current PC users are more comfortable with a tower, and they don't want to pay $1600+ (or want to, but just can't afford it)

The eMac is a nice machine (I have one), but many people I've talked to want to be able to expand cards and displays, and don't want to have to shell out hundreds after their warranty is up if an internal component like the display (which has been known to have many problems in the eMac) goes bad. Speed is never really an issue that's brought up. As long as the machine can do most tasks at a reasonable speed (which the G4 700/800 in the iMacs and eMacs can do, along with Jaguar and plenty of ram is perfect for), they wouldn't mind.

I think Apple, a company that not only created Personal Computing as we know it and brought USB, Firewire, Unix, and the PDA to the regular consumer, can figure out a way to make profit off of a sub-$1,000, expandable tower, while still retaining Apple's history of ease of use and the "complete package" feeling.

fourthtunz

Dec 20, 2002, 12:04 AM

Hey don't get me wrong I think the dual 867 is the best deal apple has had in a long time, but when you compare to a pc..well I guess people, pros decided to wait or went with a pc.
I bought another new Mac but next year, I don't know.
When you consider that many pro apps still do not use altivec or dual processors and that a $700 pc will kick ass on a $3200 Mac, which are you going to get for your business?
I love macs but why are they so much and why do they milk us every step of the way?
I will pay twice as much for a Mac that is equal to a pc speedwise but not 5 times!
If you use protools or other apps you know what I mean.
Next year had better be apples year or it will be dell, sonys etc
Daniel

kansaigaijin

Dec 20, 2002, 12:28 AM

it is not about apple being peed-off at anyone, it is about being upfront in their reports and filings to the SEC and to shareholders, post Enron, Worldcom, Xerox, etc fiascos. You can be sure Apple has already communicated its frustration to its suppliers.

PPC 970 is not going to do the job, vis a vis the perception problem. there will always be a perception problem as long as MacOS does not run on Intel/AMD processors.

I think the comments in the filing are hints and forewarnings at a radical change in the direction of Apple, away from being a Hardware company to being a OS/technology co. like M$.

Didn't Steve say that 2003 would be the turning point for Apple?

hesdeadjim

Dec 20, 2002, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by dricci

Yes, but the fact remains that many current PC users are more comfortable with a tower, and they don't want to pay $1600+ (or want to, but just can't afford it)

The eMac is a nice machine (I have one), but many people I've talked to want to be able to expand cards and displays, and don't want to have to shell out hundreds after their warranty is up if an internal component like the display (which has been known to have many problems in the eMac) goes bad. Speed is never really an issue that's brought up. As long as the machine can do most tasks at a reasonable speed (which the G4 700/800 in the iMacs and eMacs can do, along with Jaguar and plenty of ram is perfect for), they wouldn't mind.

I think Apple, a company that not only created Personal Computing as we know it and brought USB, Firewire, Unix, and the PDA to the regular consumer, can figure out a way to make profit off of a sub-$1,000, expandable tower, while still retaining Apple's history of ease of use and the "complete package" feeling.

I agree that most PC users are more comfortable with the expandablity option and that is a big deal with the all in one's (I had a 400 MHz iMac for the last 2 years), but I know a lot of consumers (consumers being the keyword) rather not deal with the insides of their computers. They rather that the computer work and maybe be able to add more RAM or something along those lines. There is the question of the display issues, but the eMac and iMacs were designed for people who don't know anything about computers. This doesn't mean that people that know everything about computers can't enjoy them and use them as well, but the bottom line it was designed for people who will never upgrade your computer like most consumers.

Now on the prosumer issue, those people that want the ability to upgrade, I see a sub-1000 maching being in their sights, but I think that the dual 867's are really quite good at the price they are. These really fill in the gap for people who are willing to spend the extra amount for great options and those people who rather not ever see the inside of their computers. Now, I know I'm making huge generalizations about people and I know that some people may be offended by this. Also, people can not be categorized this easily. On second thought, maybe the sub-1000 tower might fill the gap for the consumer who would like to put in a larger hard drive or a faster burner. I don't know, maybe a test run with it will help like you said in your earlier post. Well these are just my opinions.

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 20, 2002, 12:47 AM

the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz. unless ibm can get the speed of the 970 fast enough to take on the top 970 (conclusively) perception will remain.

apples have always been the fastest available pcs. the loss of the speed advantage that occurred around the turn of the millenium has seriously damaged apple's image, but it has only been a recent occurence. if apple/ibm are able to regain the high footing sometime soon i think the damage will be minimal.

i still recall when i could run vpc on my laptop and have its benchmarks faster than all but the top desktop pcs. i still recall when one of the biggest arguments in the macs favor was speed. for all of you recent switchers it might seem like apple has always been behind, but apple did hit 500mhz first (and this was with superior pipelining). this has all been recent. furthermore, intel has publically stated that they do not believe they can keep up the pace of Hz increases. apple/ibm can catach up, lets just hope it happens before public perception has been too negatively effected.

hesdeadjim

Dec 20, 2002, 01:14 AM

Tue12

Dec 20, 2002, 01:23 AM

Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS. :)

#1 A vast majority of the population could give a rats ass about computers. They don't own them and they don't plan to. A lot of it is because of demographics (older adults) or because the minimum need they have for a computer is satisfied by the computer at work.

#2 Those who are interested have a very low budget threshold for them which is in the $800 ballpark.

#3 The vast majority of people simply buy what they are familiar with, which is Windows. The very few that even know that Mac exists and is an option are afraid of trying 'something new'.

That's it people. Those are Apple's problems in a nutshell.

#4 Even the much vaunted 'graphics pros' that support Apple actually know very little about Macs - I speak from experience. The only reason they don't switch is because they're terrified of the notion that A) it might risk their employment B) see reason #3 only it's Mac not Windows.

And that's THE 95% TRUTH. Your welcome ... your welcome too, and you too ... yes, I know I'm brilliant... any time, your welcome...
:)

kansaigaijin

Dec 20, 2002, 01:36 AM

from an article from 2000,
Gartner says 114 million PCs were sold last year, and another 133 million will be sold this year. And they'll all need a final resting place in a few years.

so since then there has been 300 million PCs sold. IF most people don't own or care about PCs then some people have way more than their share.

If OSX will run on 5 year old PPCs then surely Marklar would run on 3 year old x86 units. That is a lot of potential customers.

chewbaccapits

Dec 20, 2002, 01:50 AM

[i]
...And that's THE 95% TRUTH.
:) [/B]

So by this, you want APLE to just fold up?...Sure, its a BLEAK situation but I think APPLE can pull it off (Market Share)...I believe APPLE is trying to reach MANY markets at the same time and with some success....I mean, the OS is awesome (Still needs more work...) and I believe with this OS its ATTRACTING attention from a variety of markets, i.e., Biomedical, Film and Tele, Education, Arts and the regular joe blow...It takes a while, but if you can GRASP the attention of the aforemention markets, excluding the regular "joes", those everyday consumers will switch...

usersince86

Dec 20, 2002, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Tue12
Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS.

Uh, I think 50% of what you said might be true, which means I agree with something like 47.5% of your post.

More than 5% of the people care about computers, and they're not geeks.

usersince86

Dec 20, 2002, 07:08 AM

(As I've said before...)

*CAUTION*

Speed bumps ahead for the next 8-12 months.

lmalave

Dec 20, 2002, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz. unless ibm can get the speed of the 970 fast enough to take on the top 970 (conclusively) perception will remain.

apples have always been the fastest available pcs. the loss of the speed advantage that occurred around the turn of the millenium has seriously damaged apple's image, but it has only been a recent occurence. if apple/ibm are able to regain the high footing sometime soon i think the damage will be minimal.

i still recall when i could run vpc on my laptop and have its benchmarks faster than all but the top desktop pcs. i still recall when one of the biggest arguments in the macs favor was speed. for all of you recent switchers it might seem like apple has always been behind, but apple did hit 500mhz first (and this was with superior pipelining). this has all been recent. furthermore, intel has publically stated that they do not believe they can keep up the pace of Hz increases. apple/ibm can catach up, lets just hope it happens before public perception has been too negatively effected.

If IBM can get the 970 up to 6 GHz like they've hinted, then I think they're in pretty good shape. Can the x86 go up to 6 GHz? even if they can, I think the pace of increase will be slower than the past 2 or 3 years. In other workds, I don't expecta 6 GHz P4 in a year, the way they went from a 1.6 GHz to 3GHz in about a year. Sure, when the 1.8 GHz 970 comes out Intel might be up to about 4GHz, but I think the 970 will close that gap quickly (so IBM will be at 4 GHz when Intel is at 5 GHz, and maybe catch up with it at 6GHz). Also, I think IBM's recent R&D in terms of making smaller transistors has been superior to Intel's. I mean, Intel's come up with, what, strained silicon? Which IBM can use in its own chips anyway....

Keep in mind that I think IBM will be more motivated in the future to compete in the CPU arena. During the "boom years" of the late 90's, IBM was more concerned with growing its consulting practice (since that's where all the money was), and convincing the market that mainframes were the ultimate high-availability web server or database server.

Now, with their strong commitment to Linux, their plan is to make a stronger push for the low-end server / high end workstation market, and they've explicitly said that their plan with the 970 is to make a killer port of Linux to it and then start pushing their 970 machines as the best machines for Linux. So I think things look OK for Apple, as long as IBM doesn't back away from that strategy...

sedarby

Dec 20, 2002, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
it is not about apple being peed-off at anyone, it is about being upfront in their reports and filings to the SEC and to shareholders, post Enron, Worldcom, Xerox, etc fiascos. You can be sure Apple has already communicated its frustration to its suppliers.

PPC 970 is not going to do the job, vis a vis the perception problem. there will always be a perception problem as long as MacOS does not run on Intel/AMD processors.

I think the comments in the filing are hints and forewarnings at a radical change in the direction of Apple, away from being a Hardware company to being a OS/technology co. like M$.

Didn't Steve say that 2003 would be the turning point for Apple?

A little history lesson:
1. NeXT Computers started with hardware and software. Dumped the hardware and focused on the software migrating it to x86. Gone and absorbed by Apple.

2. Be Computers run by another Apple executive started with hardware and software. Dumped the hardware and focused on the software. Ported to the x86. Bought by Palm Inc.

Lesson to be learned: If Apple dumps the hardware, focuses on software and ports to x86 then bye bye Apple.

In 10 years, Apple will be a fond memory if they don't start pushing world class machines that are not competitive with PCs but far outdo them.

:(

richlen

Dec 20, 2002, 08:13 AM

If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions. This is definitly an issue Apple needs to commit itself too in order to get people to truly switch in any numbers.

macmax

Dec 20, 2002, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by dricci
I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

My thesis is about Apple and i think you have hitten the nail.

The most common answer in why not getting an Apple is the price, everyone thinks that Apple would have bigger sales if the price is drop.

mrpepsi

Dec 20, 2002, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by dricci
I wish Apple would just experiment by releasing a sub $1,000 Tower and see how well it sells. I'm betting it would. I think slow sales have to do more with cost than MHz, at least in the consumer end of the market.

I agree completely. I'm not sure how much Apple is paying Motorola for it's G4's, but if it really wants to step out of the cult following and appeal to everyday people, they have to advertise for the shopper not willing to pay a premium for the "Apple Experience". If they could offer an eMac for the price of the G3 iMac, or a low-end PowerMac for the price of an eMac, and advertise it effectively...sales would have to go up.

arnette

Dec 20, 2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by lmalave

If IBM can get the 970 up to 6 GHz like they've hinted, then I think they're in pretty good shape. Can the x86 go up to 6 GHz? even if they can, I think the pace of increase will be slower than the past 2 or 3 years. In other workds, I don't expecta 6 GHz P4 in a year, the way they went from a 1.6 GHz to 3GHz in about a year. Sure, when the 1.8 GHz 970 comes out Intel might be up to about 4GHz, but I think the 970 will close that gap quickly (so IBM will be at 4 GHz when Intel is at 5 GHz, and maybe catch up with it at 6GHz

Where are you getting all this? I'm all for wishful thinking, but you're really stretching the boundaries of what is known and could happen. You have to assume you know what Intel's production/development future will be like as well as IBM's ... assuming that Apple even goes with IBM's chip for that long. I dunno.....

bretm

Dec 20, 2002, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by macmax

The most common answer in why not getting an Apple is the price, everyone thinks that Apple would have bigger sales if the price is drop.

Well, since years ago Jobs announced they average $500 profit on each computer sold (and that was before the G3, imac, etc. and their computers cost around 3 grand) my guess is they now make about $300 dollars profit per tower. Exactly how are they going to make money by selling sub $1000 towers people?

Of course their sales would soar. And their stock would drop, and their profits would vanish. But hey, everybody would just love Apple. For about a year until they folded.

The reason we like macs so much is the superior design and R&D put into the hardware and OS. Much like an expensive car, we're paying for a superior machine. Unfortunately the processor has been an issue in recent years. Using the Motorola/IBM G3/G4 set them ahead at the time. But Motorola at least seems to have dropped the ball and as far as I can tell Apple is doing everything then can about it. Even having as x86 (marklar) backup plan.

Apple can't afford to be superior, better designed, more expensive, AND slower. Even the pros have got their doubts these days. As much as Wintel boxes may drive them nuts, they do have a job to do and need to get it done efficiently.

But what Apple CAN'T afford to do is lose money on sales and drop their R&D. The superiority of the designs and OS is what's KEEPING the current users that are putting up with the lesser speed.

Major catch 22 for apple right now. These things happen and I can wait. No problem. My value is based on my skills, and my skill are based on the mac OS.

yzedf

Dec 20, 2002, 09:39 AM

The problem is market saturation. Most people that would use a computer have one now. Heck, my grandparents have had one for over a year now! How many articles have we all read that state the obvious? You don't need a new computer if the one you have now is only 2 or 3 years old. Most of my friends have been saying that for some time now.

There is no reason a company should go out and buy the newest computer for the new secretary/cube resident. A lot of companies are now leasing stuff, keeping for a few years, then trade it in for something newer, but not new. This goes in PC land as well as the Mac world.

This is why Apple sells iPods and Gateway sells TV's and Dell sells their won PDA. Computers themselves are not where the money is at. It's the add on's that make a company profitable now...

jamilecrire

Dec 20, 2002, 09:41 AM

Why am I paying $2999 for a 1GHz Laptop? I bought a PC Laptop for $1500 a year ago with a 1.13GHz processor.

If Apple would A) release faster processors or B) would lower prices they would sell more.

When my company needs to generate more revenue we don't release an inferior product and then charge double our competitors! We do our best to match the competition and we lower our price (through temporary sales). You make make a lower ROI but your overall gain is more. Sometimes MORE IS MORE. If Apple wanted more than a 3% share of the market they need to price themselves so the other 97% can buy one.

Most people I know would try an Apple but when you can get a Dell for $1000 less that may not be as elegant but performs just as well (remember most people are used to the ****ty PC environment). No one is going to "switch". The only reason I use Mac's is I prefer them (and I can afford them).

$1000~1500 more for a TiBook is okay by me but for most people it's a second computer for their wife/kid or more $$$ in the bank.

lmalave

Dec 20, 2002, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by jamilecrire
Why am I paying $2999 for a 1GHz Laptop? I bought a PC Laptop for $1500 a year ago with a 1.13GHz processor.

If Apple would A) release faster processors or B) would lower prices they would sell more.

When my company needs to generate more revenue we don't release an inferior product and then charge double our competitors! We do our best to match the competition and we lower our price (through temporary sales). You make make a lower ROI but your overall gain is more. Sometimes MORE IS MORE. If Apple wanted more than a 3% share of the market they need to price themselves so the other 97% can buy one.

Most people I know would try an Apple but when you can get a Dell for $1000 less that may not be as elegant but performs just as well (remember most people are used to the ****ty PC environment). No one is going to "switch". The only reason I use Mac's is I prefer them (and I can afford them).

$1000~1500 more for a TiBook is okay by me but for most people it's a second computer for their wife/kid or more $$$ in the bank.

Dude, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (pun intended). Did your $1500 laptop have a DVD Burner? Built-in Wi-Fi? ATI Radeon 9000 with 64MB VRAM? (all of which the high-end PowerBook which costs $2999 has). It's not just about "elegance" - these Apple laptops are packed with features!!

And keep in mind Apple's heaviest laptop is 5.9 lbs. (the 14" iBook). I don't consider low weight and portability "elegance", but a core feature that must be considered when buying a laptop. I hated lugging around my 10+ lb. Dell brick (with case, power adapter etc.), and I swore that my next computer purchase was going to be an ultraportable laptop. You mentioned that a lot of laptop purchasers are buying a second computer for their wife/kid. Do you really want to burden your poor wife or kid with a 10 lb. laptop (again, with case and all)? 10 lbs. may not sound like much when you just read it, but, believe me, in real life your shoulders feel it!! Or would you rather buy something that's easy on wife or kid's shoulders? And something that's rugged enough that they can just toss in a backpack (if kid) or handbag (if wife).

When the time finally came to buy a new laptop, I looked at my options in the market and the $1300 12.1" iBook with combo drive, 30GB HD, 384 MB of RAM, and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB ended up being the best value I could find. Similarly configured ultraportables from Dell, Sony, or Fujitsu cost at least $200 more. Look it up yourself! I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable.

Now with my rugged iBook I can just toss it in my backpack (the better with which to be discreet...), and the iBook power adapter weighs next to nothing. So I'm basically carrying 1/2 the weight I was before, and my shoulders thank me profusely for it.

So check your facts again when you compare laptop values. I think the PowerMacs are clearly overpriced, but the iBooks and PowerBooks I think stack up quite Well, and the iMacs are not that overpriced when you consider the features (DVI LCD screen, DVD burner, etc).

gbojim

Dec 20, 2002, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by mrpepsi

I agree completely. I'm not sure how much Apple is paying Motorola for it's G4's, but if it really wants to step out of the cult following and appeal to everyday people, they have to advertise for the shopper not willing to pay a premium for the "Apple Experience". If they could offer an eMac for the price of the G3 iMac, or a low-end PowerMac for the price of an eMac, and advertise it effectively...sales would have to go up.

The main thing to realize is that Apple has chosen to not try to appeal to "everyday people" based on price. Many people may not like it or agree with their decisions, but that's the way it is.

Apple's cost on the $1700 PowerMac is somewhere between $600 and $700. If they drop the retail price to <$1000, they loose money on every sale. First lesson of business 101: you cannot trade margin for volume and stay profitiable, and Apple knows this.

Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

backdraft

Dec 20, 2002, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz.

I don't see how the 3.0ghz P4 is faster than the 970, the spec tests done oon the 970 where estimated, not to mention that a 64bit chip can handle more data per cycle versus a 32bit chip and thats without factoring in Altivec and a 900mhz bus versus intels 533mhz bus (which is really a 133mhz bus itsa just that the data gets past through it 4x; 4 X 133 = 533 just marketing).

Lets wait a see... :D

lmalave

Dec 20, 2002, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by gbojim

The main thing to realize is that Apple has chosen to not try to appeal to "everyday people" based on price. Many people may not like it or agree with their decisions, but that's the way it is.

Apple's cost on the $1700 PowerMac is somewhere between $600 and $700. If they drop the retail price to <$1000, they loose money on every sale. First lesson of business 101: you cannot trade margin for volume and stay profitiable, and Apple knows this.

Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

Exactly!!! Apple cannot and will not compete on price with Dell. That would be their downfall. Apple has to compete on features because it is a niche player and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Instead, Apple needs to get those damn 970's in their computers so that they can once again make an undisputed claim to having the "premium" computers. Apple will never win by competing on price, and frankly, in the long run, neither will Dell. Competing on features and innovation is almost ALWAYS a better long-term strategy than competing on price. Dell may be riding high now, but I fully expect that they will be getting their asses thouroughly kicked by a Chinese computer maker within just a few years. Even if Dell moves all its manufacturing and assembly to China, the local Chinese companies will have all the local connections (keep in mind every single computer components will be manufactured in China by that point) to outflank Dell.

And when Dell starts to bleed money profusely as it gets into price wars with Chinese companies, Apple will still be profitable with its (hopefully) 10% market share!

arogge

Dec 20, 2002, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by richlen
If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions.

And walk they do. Many people bring newspaper advertisements with them to the stores and try to compare the WinTel world to Apple. They have difficultly recognizing the difference between Intel Pentium 4, Intel Celeron, and AMD Athlon. All they see is the MHz or GHz number. Some people even get that mixed up - for example, they see a 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 as being slower than a 2000 MHz Pentium 4. Selling to the Induhvidual is all in the marketing trickery.

mrpepsi

Dec 20, 2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by gbojim
Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

I guess I never really thought about it that way. With a BMW or Mercedes you get a faster, more comfortable, safer vehicle. With a Mac you get style and stability.

What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

jrv3034

Dec 20, 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by mrpepsi
What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

I seriously doubt MS will move to Unix/Linux. And even if they do, their GUI and case design wouldn't even come close to Apple's sense of style and grace. Just look at the color scheme of WinXP.

Apple's gonna have a great year in 2003. Just you wait...

Frobozz

Dec 20, 2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by backdraft

I don't see how the 3.0ghz P4 is faster than the 970, the spec tests done oon the 970 where estimated, not to mention that a 64bit chip can handle more data per cycle versus a 32bit chip and thats without factoring in Altivec and a 900mhz bus versus intels 533mhz bus (which is really a 133mhz bus itsa just that the data gets past through it 4x; 4 X 133 = 533 just marketing).

Lets wait a see... :D

That's a very good point. The processors will be about equal power. The key difference in was speed will end up being in the supporting hardware, it's through-put, and the ability of the software to utilize these features.

mrpepsi

Dec 20, 2002, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by jrv3034

I seriously doubt MS will move to Unix/Linux. And even if they do, their GUI and case design wouldn't even come close to Apple's sense of style and grace. Just look at the color scheme of WinXP.

Apple's gonna have a great year in 2003. Just you wait...

If they were smart and thinking ahead they would... Linux is obviously the future. Imagine one day all os's based on a gnu Linux kernal....nifty.

Lets face it, Microsoft could buy all the style they need... They have enough money to throw around to get talented GUI designers and have iApp clones to go with it.

I hope 2003 is a good year for Apple. I'd love to see them go toe to toe performance wise.

As it is...I've had to trade my iBook back in for my old Dell 1GHz P3. I have to reboot occasionally, but at least I'm not having to wait for the page to scroll. Maybe the 970 will give OSX the Oomph it needs to be the stellar OS we know it to be.

Edit: I kant spel

pmcaleer

Dec 20, 2002, 11:26 AM

By far, the biggest mindshift that the computer industry has yet to face is that speed will not matter.

In a few years, computers will be "fast enough". In fact, they already are. The iBook and iMac - heck, all of Apple's machines - may not be the kings and queens when it comes to pure, raw power. But do they do everything they're supposed to do? Yes. Do they do it with elegance? Of course - they're well-designed.

This is the shift for the consumer, then. Instead of, "It has 1.0GB of memory, 120GB of hard drive space, and a 3.0GHz processor," the questions will become, "Can I store all my photos on it? What about my music? Does it have the Internet?" :)

And we're starting to see this happen, slowly. Apple has been put in this position of mediocre processor speed, but I think they've done the best they can. Consumers are just now starting to come around to the idea of speed not being the most important thing about a computer. When that mindset really sinks in, Apple will be in a fantastic position.

I hope that comes sooner than later. Given the wackiness of hard drive sizes and the like, it seems imminent.

- Paul

Chad4Mac

Dec 20, 2002, 11:47 AM

I can't believe all this talk about Ghz and Mhz -- speed talk. It's like this is going to be the only selling point in years to come. NOT TRUE.

It is just a little piece in the puzzle.

All it will take to inform people that speed is not a issue (were talking 3+ Ghz) is a couple articles or TV programs that inform people -- 60 minutes, Nightline, etc. Then people will look at a trend of what they get for their money (beneifts the Apple side) instead of how fast their machines are. They'll do a report on what computer users actually use (program wise) and see the non-benefit of a 3+ processor. It's bound to happen.

On a PC based system: How much faster does Outlook and Explorer launch with a 3+ processor. That is not going to be a selling point to the consumer and business company in the future. News groups and consumer reports should see this soon. "How much better is your computing experience with 3+ Ghz: What are you really getting for your money, 60 minutes tonight."

There will be a adaptation from, "how fast is your system" to "what did you get for your money system" in the future.

Obviously on the consumer side...

Intel's and Microsoft's business model can not last for ever...

All it will take is information to the general public.

Any CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX reports here?

Chad4Mac

Moonlight

Dec 20, 2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Tue12
Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS. :)

#1 A vast majority of the population could give a rats ass about computers. They don't own them and they don't plan to. A lot of it is because of demographics (older adults) or because the minimum need they have for a computer is satisfied by the computer at work.

#2 Those who are interested have a very low budget threshold for them which is in the $800 ballpark.

#3 The vast majority of people simply buy what they are familiar with, which is Windows. The very few that even know that Mac exists and is an option are afraid of trying 'something new'.

That's it people. Those are Apple's problems in a nutshell.

#4 Even the much vaunted 'graphics pros' that support Apple actually know very little about Macs - I speak from experience. The only reason they don't switch is because they're terrified of the notion that A) it might risk their employment B) see reason #3 only it's Mac not Windows.

And that's THE 95% TRUTH. Your welcome ... your welcome too, and you too ... yes, I know I'm brilliant... any time, your welcome...
:)

Atleast you are humble.....:rolleyes: and I think maybe a few more people than you think own a computer.

Hawthorne

Dec 20, 2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by mrpepsi

Lets face it, Microsoft could buy all the style they need... They have enough money to throw around to get talented GUI designers and have iApp clones to go with it.

Microsoft will never, ever embrace open source. From the days of his letter to the Homebrew Computer Club to Longhorn and Palladium, Bill Gates, and the corporate culture he fostered has always been about control.

And despite all their GUI designers, they managed to come up with a look and feel for XP that borrows more from Fisher-Price than Xerox-PARC.

ldkaplan

Dec 20, 2002, 12:37 PM

Screw the numbers. My little 15" flat screen imac runs Oracle 9i much better that my 1.5 ghz pentium. I've never noticed a problem running Photoshop along side with Word and iTunes (with Oracle and Apache running in the background).

And I imagine most of you have noticed, stores like Best Buy and CompUSA now have certified Apple sales folk that do a much better job at selling than the store employed sales person. They are trained and can easily teach the uneducated user why a 1ghz mac is a stronger machine than a 1.8 ghz pentium.

Mblazened

Dec 20, 2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by pmcaleer
By far, the biggest mindshift that the computer industry has yet to face is that speed will not matter.

In a few years, computers will be "fast enough". In fact, they already are.

I agree completely. Those who are lucky enough to own today's high-end macs have no doubt begun to realize the enivitable: Computers are catching up to the speed of the human workflow. Not to brag, but i have a DP 1Ghz g4 Quicksilver'02 with 1.5 GB RAM and 200+ GB storage AND Superdrive, and frankly, I'm completely satisfied with the speed. How can I complain when I can click every icon in my dock, watch them jump up and down like an aerobics class, run perfectly and show no signs of slowing? I can download stolen music, render FCP files, burn DVDs, and run VPC all at once.

The urge to upgrade will dissipate when customers become satisfied with the performance they get from their machines. When Newer stops being Better, what will happen to the Computer industry?

The answer, of course, is that the industry must develop OSes and Applications that are more immersive (graphics-wise) to justify applicable speed bumps.

Enter Virtual Reality, the new Operations Staple. And that's just the beginning. . .

-M

solvs

Dec 20, 2002, 01:33 PM

We all know about the MHz Myth. Sometimes the P4 is faster, sometimes the G4, sometimes the Athlon. Some consumers don't care about speed, and numbers, and upgrading. Some don't want to be "weird". Some want to be "different". Some are fed up with M$, some love Apple. None of this is the point.

The consumer products are selling. People see an iBook, eMac, iPod, whatever and want it. It does what they want it to do, and it does it fast enough. When going from a 200 MHz P1 with Windows 9x to a 600 - 800 MHz G3/4 with OS X.2, speed is not an issue. You'd be surprised by people who still have these machines.

The Pro products, with the exception of the TiBook and to a lesser extent the xServe (which both are pretty good in their class), are not selling well. Why? Duh. They aren't enough for some people. You can quote Benchmarks, talk about how much M$ sucks, whatever. Businesses tend to buy what they think has the best Price/Performance ratio. Some people need Macs for a certain reason, some need PCs.

Do-it-yourselfers just build a PC for couple of hundred bucks. They don't want the e/iMacs. I for one would love a sub ~ $1000 Tower, and I know a lot of people who would agree. You can go to Smalldog or PowerMax or eBay, but I don't want to buy a used old Mac. The Cube didn't do so well, because it was the right concept, wrong way to implement it. It was cool, but expensive and not very easy to expand.

Apple needs an expandable Prosumer computer.

*Just a note. Intel has a consumer 64-Bit CPU in the works, but it sacrifices MHz for performance. Sound familiar? Their Mobile CPU does the same thing. There's an article in Maximum PC about it (I love how they make fun of Intel). But lets not fool ourselves. Power and heat be darned, the 3.06 GHz is FAST. You won't see me buying a $700 processor, but I know some who would.

BTW. Some of us do need the speed, but don't have a lot to spend. I like having fast renders on a budget, with the possiblity of cheap and easy upgrades later. But I hate Windows.

DharvaBinky

Dec 20, 2002, 01:45 PM

I think Apple is going in the right direction with their systems and specs. Yes, there seems to be a rut or a gap right now between the Mac and PC world in spec terms, but... as more and more work of games and other "taxing" applications are off-loaded to the graphics card (and more and more work *will* be as hardware becomes better), the speed of the CPU matters less. For example... What's the single most expensive component of a modern computer?

Well... a few years ago, it was the CPU. Buy the fastest and the best and you'd have to put out a few hundred dollars for the single item. These days, if you're building a game rig, your money is much better off spent on a fancy GPU. If you built an AMD box to play games, you'd spend *way* less on the CPU and the motherboard than on the Radeon 9700 PRO you put in there to whoop up some RTCW!

I think that a lot of this faw-faw mines faster crap about CPU speeds is going to become pointless in the next few years. How much faster than "instantaneous" does something have to be?

No, I think the next items that "drive" pc competitive sales will be other features like connectivity, bandwidth, video, storage, etc... And I think Apple sees that, since they're choosing to concentrate on smooth integration of those features into OS X. Windows is much more of a "strap-on" kind of mentality. You can get Windows XP, but you have to get the USB2.0 driver pack to extend it. You can get Winxp, but you have to get the blueTooth pack to get it to work in a separate app. really un-elegant.

Just my gazillion cents worth?

Binky

jamilecrire

Dec 20, 2002, 02:14 PM

First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remeber they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Originally posted by lmalave

Dude, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (pun intended). Did your $1500 laptop have a DVD Burner? Built-in Wi-Fi? ATI Radeon 9000 with 64MB VRAM? (all of which the high-end PowerBook which costs $2999 has). It's not just about "elegance" - these Apple laptops are packed with features!!

And keep in mind Apple's heaviest laptop is 5.9 lbs. (the 14" iBook). I don't consider low weight and portability "elegance", but a core feature that must be considered when buying a laptop. I hated lugging around my 10+ lb. Dell brick (with case, power adapter etc.), and I swore that my next computer purchase was going to be an ultraportable laptop. You mentioned that a lot of laptop purchasers are buying a second computer for their wife/kid. Do you really want to burden your poor wife or kid with a 10 lb. laptop (again, with case and all)? 10 lbs. may not sound like much when you just read it, but, believe me, in real life your shoulders feel it!! Or would you rather buy something that's easy on wife or kid's shoulders? And something that's rugged enough that they can just toss in a backpack (if kid) or handbag (if wife).

When the time finally came to buy a new laptop, I looked at my options in the market and the $1300 12.1" iBook with combo drive, 30GB HD, 384 MB of RAM, and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB ended up being the best value I could find. Similarly configured ultraportables from Dell, Sony, or Fujitsu cost at least $200 more. Look it up yourself! I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable.

Now with my rugged iBook I can just toss it in my backpack (the better with which to be discreet...), and the iBook power adapter weighs next to nothing. So I'm basically carrying 1/2 the weight I was before, and my shoulders thank me profusely for it.

So check your facts again when you compare laptop values. I think the PowerMacs are clearly overpriced, but the iBooks and PowerBooks I think stack up quite Well, and the iMacs are not that overpriced when you consider the features (DVI LCD screen, DVD burner, etc).

bbyrdhouse

Dec 20, 2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by richlen
If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions. This is definitly an issue Apple needs to commit itself too in order to get people to truly switch in any numbers.

I have to agree.

People "in the know" might know that Macs are superior to PC's but to people who don't know they look at 2 things
1. Price
2. Speed

pretentious

Dec 20, 2002, 03:06 PM

Couple points I'd like to say;
1st: I hate it when I hear "but our Computers are fast enough" esp. fellow Mac users, as justification for the lag in speed compared to a PC at the moment. Computers will never be fast enough until someone can do everything they would like to do w/o any kind of lag time, until then Mac/PCs need to get faster, I should never have to see a progress bar go my screen to do any thing I do, it should wait for me not me waiting for it, until then it feels like we are just giving excuses for our computer/OS of choice, and I wouldn't want it to come back bite our asses if the 970 turns out to be a killer chip and beating the hell out of the Hammer or P4. We wouldn't be able to gloat properly now would we?
2nd: Apple has gone with cheap desktop computers before, can we not forget the Performas and LCs? I doubt anyone would like to see the same mistakes that they did on those computers again, all in the name of price? You should go to Low End Mac (http://www.lowendmac.com), over the pass week or two they have been having a great discussion on the possibility of a low price headless Macs, mostly for education but also for the rest of us, they make some great points and its a great read. I also have some ideas on this too but I think I'm going to add it to another thread.
3rd: Apple needs to be entering in to the "Media Center PC" market like what HP has been advertising, and merge the TiVo experience w/ the Mac (buy out? they do use PPCs), from what I have seen of it seems too cool to miss out, and too unlike Apple not to get involved; PS I do know that there was once a MacTV, but this just seems like a better way to do it.

Hawthorne

Dec 20, 2002, 03:11 PM

Oh boy, where to start....
Originally posted by jamilecrire
First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

Find a PC laptop with the all the features of a powerbook at a price comparable to $3000. Compare everything, screen size, battery life, weight, video card, the whole enchilada.

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Find a laptop with 3 ghz that's out today in the PC world. Don't compare what's available now vs. what might be.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remember they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.
Dell is a model of infrastructure, not innovation. Their business plan is to repackage whatever Microsoft and Intel ship, and do it for less. Apple made some of the worst business decisions in IT from 1990-1996. Doesn't mean they're not coming back, in the same way Dell's current model doesn't mean it's immortal.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If Apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Pathetic? Sorry, son, I'll be working happily on my 700 mhz g3 iBook while while 1.2 mhz mobile P3 in a comparable PC laptop slows to a crawl as the battery life disappears faster than beer at a frat party.

edited to correct typos. Sorry, rented fingers. :)

lmalave

Dec 20, 2002, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by jamilecrire
First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remeber they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Dude, you do know the tech boom is over, right? And that profitability actually matters, not just revenue? Apple is pursuing a profitable niche strategy, because they know they can't compete on price. The fact is most PC makers (Dell being the notable exception) are losing money from their PC business (IBM and HP are profitable, but not their PC divisions). If Apple tries to compete with Dell, they'll just be another money-losing Gateway-type company.

And I'm not actually questioning Dell's business sense - they're definitely doing what's most profitable for them at this moment. But that doesn't change the fact that their current strategy is not maintainable, and they will in fact have to adapt. Think about it. They're competing in a commodity business, and not only that, but all they're actually doing is assembling together components. Which basically means that they're just ripe for getting thrashed by a foreign competitors. Let's not forget the other previously glorious American industries (steel, automobile, memory chips) that met the same fate. In economics this is called "comparative advantage". In the future, China will have a significant comparative advantage that Dell won't be able to match. I hope the tech boom and bust cycle has taught us that tech companies are by no means immune to the fundamental laws of economics.

Will Dell adapt? Absolutely, they're a very smart company. But the distance between Dell and Apple or Sony (in the PC market) will blur, and Dell's market share will fall, as they retreat in the face of a flood of low-priced Chinese computers.

And your are entitled to your opinion but I love my iBook and its Airport card. I like being able to use my iBook from anywhere in my apartment (desk, couch, bed) without having to drag around a 30 ft. ethernet cable, as I've been known to do in the past. And at school (I'm a part-time MBA student) the Airport worked flawlessly - it automatically detected the network, and all I had to do was put in the WEP key for my school's network.

Pathetic iBook? I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable laptop with the specs on my iBook as I described before. Keep in mind, the Dell and Sony ultraportables use PIII's (from 800MHz to 1.2GHz) and NOT P4's. And the Fujitsu uses a Transmeta Crusoe 933MHz. Why do they use these chips? Because they double the battery life as compared to the P4. And laptop users aren't going to be power users anyway - gamers are going to go for a desktop anyway.

Let me ask you this: why do you need more power than the iBook has? (or the abovementioned ultraportable PCs). I not only use my iBook for standard stuff: web browsing, document editing, MP3 listening, DVD viewing. But I also use it for development. Granted, I am a database developer so the code is actually executing on a high-powered Sun server. But still, I have BBEdit, CVS, Ant, all the various Unix and open source tools. Which means I am more of a "power user" than at leat 90% of consumers. The few reasons that I can think of for having a more powerful computer would be that either: a) you're a gamer, or b) your need it for work (graphic/video work, scientific computation, CPU-intensive programming and compilation, etc.). And like I said, if you really need that power for gaming or work, you probably need to get a high-end desktop machine anyway.

I too am a huge fan and would like to see Apple start competing on CPU. But not because I need more CPU myself, but rather because I recognize that it is sevely impacting Apple's perception in the market place (as Apple itself noted in its 10-K). And I want Apple to do well: I enjoy my iBook and its OS X operating system, and I want Apple to be successful so that it can continue to make investments in OS X and continue to get more 3rd party support from software and hardware makers.

minux

Dec 20, 2002, 04:02 PM

What everyone here is failing to realize is it does not matter if Apple gains another customer or not. It does not matter if they increase their revenue or not. And, it does not matter if their stock drop another 5 points or not. It really doesn't, because unlike HP, Compaq, ect Apple has a excellent installed user base, second to none in the hardware market. Apple does not need to increase it sales, it is making money, and is producing the finest hardware in the world at affordable prices. Remember the Amerlio days? Things were a lot worse, and they were still making money! Jobs has turned Apple around to where it was in the 1980s. Apple is not in dire conditions, and for once in history more people are switching to Macs then leaving Mac. People please analyze their cash on hand and their business strategies, apple is doing very well!

Remember the banter on Mhz does not matter? Well guess what it still does not matter. We are users of a Personal Computer, are computers are not rocket ships, and no we can not render the fifth dimension in a nanosecond, but guess what? It still serves us. If you want to do rendering, ect and get turned on by benchmarks, why in the hell are you using a PC? Go out and get an SGI box.

Do you know why the “artistic” people use Macs? No, it is not about the speed. And, no it is not about the Hardware profiles, it is about the software implantation, and because it satisfies are need beyond any incarnation on the Intel side.

I would be willing to bet that half the people here, whom are talking about speed have never owned a Mac. My iBook 700mhz w/ 128mb running Mac OS 10.2.3 is faster then my PIV 1.8ghz w/ 512mb ram running XP. Plain and simple. Do I care about running PS, B5, or other? No! Why? Because who the hell uses that! I am a writer, a coder, and a computer fan. My iBook, is what it advertises my life to go. I do not need the power of a G4, I prefer G3s, call me crazy but I love G3s...

People please grow up and think about what you are saying.

Mike

Sorry for the rant, but people annoy me. Remeber when Jobs said that MSOFT is not the enemy? Well guess what it still isnt. Choose a machine that satisfys your needs, and stop worrying about the specs. I still use FrameMaker on NeXT boxes, and guess what? It only has a 25mhz CPU! Why do I use it? Because it does what I need it to do.

banjoboy1979

Dec 20, 2002, 04:20 PM

i only have one thing to say to that last post.

amen, brother. amen.

DavPeanut

Dec 20, 2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by yzedf
The problem is market saturation. Most people that would use a computer have one now. Heck, my grandparents have had one for over a year now! How many articles have we all read that state the obvious? You don't need a new computer if the one you have now is only 2 or 3 years old. Most of my friends have been saying that for some time now.

There is no reason a company should go out and buy the newest computer for the new secretary/cube resident. A lot of companies are now leasing stuff, keeping for a few years, then trade it in for something newer, but not new. This goes in PC land as well as the Mac world.

This is why Apple sells iPods and Gateway sells TV's and Dell sells their won PDA. Computers themselves are not where the money is at. It's the add on's that make a company profitable now...

Its just like Movie theaters. They dont make a cent on the tickets, they make money on the overpriced food.

backdraft

Dec 20, 2002, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by mrpepsi

If they were smart and thinking ahead they would... Linux is obviously the future. Imagine one day all os's based on a gnu Linux kernal....nifty.

Lets face it, Microsoft could buy all the style they need... They have enough money to throw around to get talented GUI designers and have iApp clones to go with it.

I hope 2003 is a good year for Apple. I'd love to see them go toe to toe performance wise.

As it is...I've had to trade my iBook back in for my old Dell 1GHz P3. I have to reboot occasionally, but at least I'm not having to wait for the page to scroll. Maybe the 970 will give OSX the Oomph it needs to be the stellar OS we know it to be.

Edit: I kant spel

Actually Microsoft had a Unix OS SCO-Xenix, they didn't write the code of course, too much for them to handle ;)

They dump Unix because they couldn't control it because of the licenses. If Microsoft can't make money off of it or control it 100% They buy something else that they can control and sucker people into believing its superior, then they make there own protocols so your supposed to only use their products with the OS or worse purposely write code into the OS to make their competitor software crash therefore you have to buy M$ crappy software. If it were uo to M$ they would charge for bug fixes, of course then they would purposely write bugs into their own programs.

Evil aren't they:rolleyes:

Never except an imitation stick with the original, buy a Mac.
Oh, and drink original, have a nice cold Coca Cola :D

MacCoaster

Dec 20, 2002, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by minux
Apple does not need to increase it sales, it is making money, and is producing the finest hardware in the world at affordable prices.
Last time I checked, they lost $50 million last quarter. I know, $50 million is nothing like what they have in their banks ($4B). But that doesn't matter. They are losing money. It's only in the long run that the $4 B matters. What if they constantly lose $50 million and more per quarter. Apple will be gone quicker than you think if they do continue.
Because who the hell uses that! I am a writer, a coder, and a computer fan. My iBook, is what it advertises my life to go. I do not need the power of a G4, I prefer G3s, call me crazy but I love G3s...
*GASP* Your so-called "artistic" people USE those applications! There are a lot of those people. So with your definition, 3D animation isn't art, Photoshop isn't art. Interesting. :rolleyes: And yes, those people need more power. Millions of other people do care.

Bregalad

Dec 20, 2002, 09:15 PM

The best argument here today is the most simple:

The consumer sees 1/2 the speed for 2x the price. End of story. They never even consider the Mac again.

For the more educated person, and let's face it there's an entire generation of computer savy future purchasers growing up as we speak, the specs matter. Years ago mainstream computer writers gave one piece of advice: buy as much speed as you can afford.

Speaking of that new generation of customers, I read a report recently that said that the vast majority of 15-24 year olds don't like the Switch campaign. That's terrible news for Apple.

To those that argue that eventually computers will be fast enough haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. No matter how fast the computer somebody will always be able to come up with a task that needs an even faster one. Think about how fast an Apple ][ booted and that was from an ancient 180k floppy disk. How about the speed at which a Lotus 1-2-3 window was drawn by a 286 with a Hercules monochrome card? How about the promise that Quadra 950 buyers could say goodbye to their progress bars? No, every new computer has been bogged down by hungry software.

I've seen people say that Dell will be killed by even cheaper PCs made in China. What the heck is going to happen to Apple? 1/4 the speed for 4x the price? I love OS X compared to Windows, but that kind of equation will make me switch to the dark side. I work with Windows every day at work. Even cheap PCs run for several years without suffering hardware failures, the OS rarely crashes, and now even P4 based PCs with their enormous heat output are quieter than PowerMacs.

Apple has only one leg left to stand on and it's the OS. If the price and performance gap continues to grow it will soon make no sense for anyone to buy a Mac.

lmalave

Dec 20, 2002, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Bregalad

To those that argue that eventually computers will be fast enough haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. No matter how fast the computer somebody will always be able to come up with a task that needs an even faster one. Think about how fast an Apple ][ booted and that was from an ancient 180k floppy disk. How about the speed at which a Lotus 1-2-3 window was drawn by a 286 with a Hercules monochrome card? How about the promise that Quadra 950 buyers could say goodbye to their progress bars? No, every new computer has been bogged down by hungry software.

That has certainly been true for most of the PC's history, but the trend has been dramatically different in the last few years. My mom is still totally happy with her 450MHz Pentium II, and sees no reason to upgrade now or in the future. I myself was totally happy with my Dell 600 MHz P III laptop and Compaq 466 MHz AMD K6-2 desktop. The fact is, for the vast majority of consumers the web browser and Office are probably the most demanding applications they run.

But when my Dell laptop died and I had to look for a new laptop, I did not even consider the CPU. I mean, it just wasn't a factor at all in and of itself (though of course it affects battery life, which I was concerned with). In fact, the 4 laptops that made my short list had G3, P III, or Transmeta Crusoe processors. I ended up going with the iBook because I thought it was by far the best laptop I could get for $1300.

And granted, I would put myself in the "savvy consumer" category that looks at features as you mentioned. But if you read what I said about my mom above, I think that "unsavvy" consumers are also increasingly starting not to care about speed. For the average consumer price is paramount, though, which is why Apple is a niche player (by choice, *even if* Macs had 3 GHz G5s by now or whatever was in the original Motorola roadmap, though of course Apple was hoping to have 20 or 25 percent market share by now...).

For consumers that are willing to pay more than $500 for a desktop, I think Apple competes better than you might think, because that implies that that consumer is looking for something that the $500 computer doesn't have, and is thus looking at features. And the situation is even better for Apple in laptops, since its consumer iBook line is in the same price range ($1000 to $2000) as the consumer lines of all the major laptop makers. Apple still has the MHz gap, but laptop users are by definition looking at other features like size, battery life, etc.

So I don't think things look all that grim for Apple, even in this tough 2003 year as they wait for 970 salvation from IBM. The PowerPC chip drought has forced Apple to really focus on great design (which has always been the case of course, but the urgency of differentiating their product is definitely greater now), expanding to other products (iPod) and eking out performance from its architechture (like offloading OS graphics to the graphics card with Quartz Extreme), which will all greatly benefit Apple in the long term anyway.

Bregalad

Dec 21, 2002, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by lmalave
That has certainly been true for most of the PC's history, but the trend has been dramatically different in the last few years. My mom is still totally happy with her 450MHz Pentium II, and sees no reason to upgrade now or in the future. I myself was totally happy with my Dell 600 MHz P III laptop and Compaq 466 MHz AMD K6-2 desktop. The fact is, for the vast majority of consumers the web browser and Office are probably the most demanding applications they run.

Glad to see somebody actually reads my posts.

450MHz machines make good web browsing stations. Therefore your mom's computer is enough for her, at least for the immediate future. Heck my parents aren't too upset about having an old PowerMac 6100 with a 33.6 modem because they're not really interested in the web. My mom would rather use a typewriter than a computer.

The issue is this: when 100MHz computers were standard they were already fast enough for everything the average consumer did. Back then, however, there really wasn't much of a web, there weren't digital cameras and there certainly wasn't anything like iMovie. So even though 100MHz was all people needed, most have found a reason since then to upgrade. The explosion of the web and, most significantly, rich content on the web has made those 100MHz machines obsolete even though they still do everything consumers thought they'd ever need to do with a computer.

A few years from now there will be something else that pushes the upgrade cycle because 450MHz machines just won't be enough for whatever the new thing is. Your mom may never want to take advantage of the new content, but many people will, just as millions discovered their old computers weren't good enough for today's photo, Flash and video enabled web.

It's probably sensible for most consumers to wait until they need the speed before they buy a new machine and more and more are doing just that. All computer makers are in a slow sales period at least partly because there is nothing driving the need for more speed. However, those who have chosen to go shopping will without doubt look at numbers before anything else.

1. Price
Apple misses the boat in several markets (notebooks are for the most part an exception)
2. Speed and other "up front" specs
Even if the customer can afford a Mac the raw numbers we throw around (700MHz, 128MB RAM, etc.) are tiny compared to even bargain basement PCs.

Only a knowledgeable person goes beyond #2 by which time Apple has already lost over 90% of potential customers. Add the tendancy for people to act like lemmings and Windows becomes a snowball rolling down a hill. It's already so big that Apple has to mount a major ad campaign just to get people to notice that they exist.

I love Macs and OS X, but I could get a PC with more of everything than a Mac, a consumer DVD player and a 32" television set for the price of the low end G4 tower. Which package offers the most features?

"Why a tower?", you ask. A thousand reasons not the least of which is not wanting to be stuck with old technology. My old Rage128 will soon be replaced by a card that fully supports Quartz Extreme. Try doing that with any other year 2000 model Mac.

mum

Dec 21, 2002, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Bregalad
The best argument here today is the most simple:

The consumer sees 1/2 the speed for 2x the price. End of story. They never even consider the Mac again.

For the more educated person, and let's face it there's an entire generation of computer savy future purchasers growing up as we speak, the specs matter.

Was that the "best argument"?

If the more educated person chooses a PC, then why are Mac users (according to a recent research you've all probably heard of) richer and have a higher IQ?

As long as Macs do things PC's can't (like some high-end print graphics/audio stuff) Apple will stay in business. Also, as long as there are people who don't want Windows and can't use Linux etc., Apple will be there.

The price issue also requires some thinking ahead; I could still sell my G4/450 dual for half the price I paid for it - and why couldn't I, the best recording studio I've seen (last summer) had a G4/500 running ProTools. A PC bought at the same time would be worth a lot less. I'd consider the resale value when buying something, but for some reason PC people don't see computers as something with a resale value and therefore ignore it when comparing the prices.

As for Apple's laptops, I haven't ever seen anything better suited for making music on the move than TiBooks - and a lot of musicians will agree.

That said, the speed is currently an issue, merely because OS X GUI doesn't run as snappily as it should even on the newest machines - not because I'm making a comparison to Windows, which doesn't meet my needs anyway.

usersince86

Dec 21, 2002, 07:25 AM

An anology from the world of politics (which isn't that different from sales):

In the election between Clinton and Dole...

Let's say:
* speed and price = "the economy"
* true value and features = "family values"

Apple fans appreciate the "family values" of the Mac, and are willing to pay a bit more, because they realize "the economy" is less important.

But in the real world, who wins? As James Carville said,

"It's the ECONOMY, stupid."

(Not calling anyone stupid, just trying to re-emphasize a point that several others have made...)

bbyrdhouse

Dec 21, 2002, 07:32 AM

Remember the banter on Mhz does not matter? Well guess what it still does not matter. We are users of a Personal Computer, our computers are not rocket ships, and no we can not render the fifth dimension in a nanosecond,.....

As I have said before. Who is anyone to say that Mhz does not matter?

The fact is that thousands, hundreds of thousands of computer buyers use Mhz as the benchmark when buying a PC.

To say that it doesn't matter is foolish, maybe it doesn't matter to you, but you are not the only one that uses or is buying or plans to buy a computer.

IF IT MATTERS TO THE CONSUMER THEN IT SHOULD MATTER TO APPLE!!!!

Some of the people that post here are as bad as Microsoft. They take the attitude of you don't need a faster processor so take this one instead, or If you don't like what Apple offers then go get a crummy PC, or If you want a Mac your gonna have to pay hand over fist whethor you like it or not!

Again, Price and Speed are the 2 main things that non-geek, normal people look at when purchasing a computer.

giovanni

Dec 21, 2002, 07:39 AM

amazing truths revealed. But my conclusion remains the same: Apple committed a strategically hard to believe mistake by relying entirely on a single supplier. This could cost, likely has already cost, Apple immensily in its attempt to regain market share as the company's made incredible advances in other areas. Had the company had the same "success" in upgrading processors coupled with software substantial progress, I do believe Apple would be far ahead at this point, inspite of horrendous market conditions. Damned !!!!!!!!!!

usersince86

Dec 21, 2002, 07:43 AM

Again, Price and Speed are the 2 main things that non-geek, normal people look at when purchasing a computer.

And in THAT order:
#1 - PRICE
#2 - speed

Unless you have a specific need or want, you'll buy based on that. (Maybe the fact that you're familiar with Windows makes a difference, too???)

Hawthorne

Dec 21, 2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by usersince86

And in THAT order:
#1 - PRICE
#2 - speed

Unless you have a specific need or want, you'll buy based on that. (Maybe the fact that you're familiar with Windows makes a difference, too???)

Somewhere in One Infinite Loop, I bet Apple has a a marketing department that knows all this price/value stuff.... :)

Price is important, that's why the price on iBooks and Powerbooks was dropped to make them more competitive . Look for more of the same at MWSF.

jrv3034

Dec 21, 2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
Price is important, that's why the price on iBooks and Powerbooks was dropped to make them more competitive . Look for more of the same at MWSF.

One can only hope you're right. The day apple comes out with a sub $700 machine is when more people will make the switch. And that's waht you want. Once they've switched, they won't switch back.

Edot

Dec 21, 2002, 12:44 PM

One thing besides price and speed that I haven't seen brought up here is the sterotype that a Macintosh is a low quality, slow, and unreliable computer. The majority of people I talk to haven't seen a mac since 1995, and when they see their new computers and OS X they are shocked. I find it very amuzing that people think that Apple computers have not changed for 5-7 years. Where Apple's bad name came from, I have no idea. To all of us their name spells Quality, but not to the common uneducated consumer. Especially Teenages, we had a mac lab at our high school, which was horrible run by the way, and the students always said, "These stupid macs!". I would ask why they are stupid, and they had no real answer. Where did this stereotype come from, and why does it still exist? My girlfriend happend to switch 4 people, including her teacher by giving a speech on Apple, with her iMac. When people see a NEW mac they are WOWED. I just wish this would happen more often.

I also enjoy the Pre-Highschool economics, lower prices->More Sales.;)

usersince86

Dec 21, 2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by jrv3034
The day apple comes out with a sub $700 machine is when more people will make the switch. And that's waht you want. Once they've switched, they won't switch back.

It WOULD be nice to have a "low end" machine (no monitor):

G3, 700MHz, 256M, 20G, CD-RW, 8M Video RAM, 1 FW, 2 USB:

Sounds possible for $699.

After all, the low-end iBook has all that except the CD-RW and only 128M (but it's so cheap now), has more VRAM (16M), portability, and a screen for only $999.

Bregalad

Dec 21, 2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by mum
If the more educated person chooses a PC, then why are Mac users (according to a recent research you've all probably heard of) richer and have a higher IQ?

Only rich people can justify paying too much for a computer.

Every one of us obviously has some personal reason for having a Mac. Mine used to be familiarity with the OS and the bad reputation that Windows had. Now that I use Windows every day at work I've found that the gap has narrowed considerably and I own a PC in addition to two Macs.

Macs seem to have extraordinary resale value. Much of this is no doubt based on wealthy people's willingness to pay too much. Another good reason is the slow rate of progress in Apple hardware. Whereas PCs have tripled in clock speed in the last few years, gone from having old RS-232 serial ports to USB 2.0 and FireWire, moved from PC66 to PC2700 and RDRAM, Macs have made very little progress. The blue & white G3 had essentially the same case as today's G4, with the same array of ports and a moderately slower motherboard. There has been good progress on the processor front recently, but we were stalled at 450MHz for a year.

Is the Mac the best platform for music? I've been told it is. What percentage of the general population cares about that? What percentage cares about ColorSync? What percentage even know what Photoshop is? Not many.

The average consumer wants what everybody else has. It creates a warm fuzzy feeling inside that you've made the right choice even if you haven't.

There is one other area that is quite significant and it explains the PC weenies who ridicule Mac users.

20% (or more) of all PCs sold are "white box" models. These aren't brand name computers, they are locally assembled from individual parts. The buyers of these machines (or their children) know what they want in their PC and know all about which brand of motherboard is best suited to their particular needs. This large number of PC buyers has researched every single component in their PC and know all the specs. They can flash BIOS, overclock, and quote performance statistics by the hour.

In stark contrast is the Mac user whose response to "what's the bus speed of your iMac?" is likely to reply with "what's that?" or "who cares?". PC weenies see that as an admission by the Mac user that (s)he's an idiot who barely knows how to use a mouse. We know this is a false conclusion, but you can see where it comes from.

zuffen

Dec 21, 2002, 06:17 PM

I hate to say it but I'm going to buy a PC. I can't find any advantage in spending more money on a out of date, overpriced machine.

These slight speed bumps don't warrent the prices.

Apple has been adrift for the last two years when it comes to the core system, they have made leaps and bounds on the add-ons but hell by the time I can buy a new tower, I can't afford an Ipod, or digital camera, or software to anti up to OSX.

I use FCP for my editing but I'm going to jump ship and head back to Avid and run it on a PC. I might have few more headaches but I can't wait for Apple to either lower prices or catch up to the competition. My computer usage and purchases are based on productivity, expandability and economics and I can get more for my dollar on a PC with the same amount of productivity.

Somebody please try to sway me back...I don't really want to convert back....

giovanni

Dec 21, 2002, 06:47 PM

zuffen,
if you were rational in your decision, there is not much I could do to change your mind. Possibly somebody else will try, and I am sure you'll find many around here.
I am an Apple fanatic so I keep buying them yet knowing it is not a smart thing to do. However, note that I only use the Mac at home, for fun so I have no "serious" needs. I shall add to that: no other PC will ever enter my house.

But I do wonder, really, how someone who uses his Mac to make a living can actually do that. I have used over the past decade nothing but PCs at work, where I do make a living, and still today I wonder what is the bs about PC's crashing all the time. My PC at work has crashed may be once over the past 2 years ! And before that, no PC would ever, I mean, EVER, come even remotely close to my Mac at home in terms of number of crashes. My Mac would win with no contest.

But what can you do, first I love my Mac, second, I don't make a living with it

best,
gio

zuffen

Dec 21, 2002, 07:31 PM

I use a PC at work too, and while using Media encoders I've had crashes and lock ups. But usually it was from the IT manager screwing with the machine and adding cards or software without me knowing it. The video editing software has had problems but not unusual. If I build the machine I gernerally don't have issues.

My dilema is that I want to stay MAC at home but a G3 400 is getting old and unable to perform the tasks the newer software is asking. So I'm thinking of buying a PC for video work and graphics and use the G3 for email and web cruisen. I love that I don't have to worry about viruses.

I'm just trying to stay on the curve so to speak.

The PC will stay off the net except for the web conferencing that I have to do occasionly. Another thing Apple sucks at, they should have been a leader in teleconferencing software and hardware.

I just wish Apple would catch up and offer a competitive product.

I get this feeling that Steve Jobs is just laughing at us.

blueBomber

Dec 21, 2002, 07:49 PM

why doesn't Apple pull the same thing AMD has done recently, put how fast the chip performs compared to the competition in the name instead of the actual clock speed.

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+ ;)

it could work...

nickmcghie

Dec 22, 2002, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by minux
My iBook 700mhz w/ 128mb running Mac OS 10.2.3 is faster then my PIV 1.8ghz w/ 512mb ram running XP. Plain and simple.

thats great, but here's a word of advice: it'll feel even faster with more RAM... i was skeptical myself at first, but the more RAM you give OS X, the faster it'll run.. i recommend adding at least 256 megs, preferably 512. ;)

anway, back on the main topic, i think apple is indeed in a slump (in terms of the performance of their high-end towers compared to PC's), but hopefully 2003 really will be Apple's Year, starting with the 970 :D

giovanni

Dec 22, 2002, 09:03 AM

zuffen, I am all with you. To tell you more, I was not long ago in a very similar situation: a few months back I had a G3 350 myself (I still have it) but it had been a while that I was realizing I had to upgrade for the reason you mention (keep up with new software basically). The differerence however, is that I never even considered the option of a PC for my home. But you seem rational, while I am not at all when it comes to my home computers.

I also do moderate amounts of video editing and I KNOW it is a lot faster on a PC, like everything else; I know I would save a few bux (even though I think a lot less than a few years ago anyway). So what I did ? I upgraded to a PM dual 867, paying the same amount of money I have paid in the last decade to buy a new machine. I mean, there are reasons, even though not sufficient to make my_behaviour "rational".
In other words on a price/performance basis any Mac is ridiculous: after all shall we debate why Apple has had no more than a 5% market share for how many years now? Let me add a note here: OSX, I am discovering is a truly fabulous operating system. But then, yes, we do have MS Office but it runs like ********g super ****** motherlover c**p - excuse my french - but geeeeee MS Office is almost like the OS of a computer, it has got to run well !!!!

Oh, so what was my point ? get a new Mac :), can't be rational all the time - as long as it does indeed make you happy. Sorry, lots of mumbling....

giovanni

Dec 22, 2002, 09:05 AM

hmmmm, all this hope in the new god in the block, "The 970", worries me infinitely. But, hey, what would life be with no gods and no hopes ?

fourthtunz

Dec 22, 2002, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by zuffen
I hate to say it but I'm going to buy a PC. I can't find any advantage in spending more money on a out of date, overpriced machine.
I use FCP for my editing but I'm going to jump ship and head back to Avid and run it on a PC. I might have few more headaches but I can't wait for Apple to either lower prices or catch up to the competition. My computer usage and purchases are based on productivity, expandability and economics and I can get more for my dollar on a PC with the same amount of productivity.
Somebody please try to sway me back...I don't really want to convert back....

Just wanted to mention, if you are doing video,graphics,digital pics the new Macs are very fast, as fast as pcs if you use apps like fcp or the apple included apps that take advantage of the duals/alticvec which are very good. If you go to avid which isn't as good in my opinion you'll pay $1200 or so just for the software and I think it worth mentioning that there are pcs that cost as much as macs, the better made ones.
But.. My gripe is for audio or other such apps that take no advantage of duals or altivec and that the dual 1250 is grossly overpriced when you consider that you only get to use 1 processor for audio. For what you're doing the dual 867 will rock your world! I don't like the windoz os but if Mac doesn't come through in 2003 I may switch just for Protools, cause you never see the os for an app like that,
daniel

SchlimpyChicken

Dec 22, 2002, 01:33 PM

Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."

In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.

They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special14.htm) with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.

Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.

Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."

SchlimpyChicken

Dec 22, 2002, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by blueBomber

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+ ;)
Uh, because unlike AMD, Apple's claim (as posted by you) would be an outright lie.

You can't talk about MHz and forget about system and RAM bus speeds. Apple currently has a serious problem with memory bandwidth and bus speed. I would (generously) revise your numbering system to read:

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 2000+

fourthtunz

Dec 22, 2002, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."

In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.

They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special14.htm) with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.

Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.

Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."

Well for consumers at the price you mention the Imac will fill the bill, the old one or the new or even the emac will be close and they will be alot happier when the firewire works and they have the full version of the os and without the Government seeing evrything you do:mad: the included apps are very good, but if you had a new Mac you would know that right?
daniel:)

SchlimpyChicken

Dec 22, 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Well for consumers at the price you mention the Imac will fill the bill, the old one or the new or even the emac will be close and they will be alot happier when the firewire works and they have the full version of the os and without the Government seeing everything you do:mad: the included apps are very good
Typical response. So Joe User should buy a used 700MHz eMac/iMac for the same price as an new, upgradeable 1.8GHz Dell with 15" LCD monitor and warranty?

Do you want a job at Apple or something? :rolleyes:

I don't think I'll even dignify the OS and government comment with a real response.

fourthtunz

Dec 22, 2002, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Edot
One thing besides price and speed that I haven't seen brought up here is the sterotype that a Macintosh is a low quality, slow, and unreliable computer. The majority of people I talk to haven't seen a mac since 1995, and when they see their new computers and OS X they are shocked. I find it very amuzing that people think that Apple computers have not changed for 5-7 years. Where Apple's bad name came from, I have no idea. To all of us their name spells Quality, but not to the common uneducated consumer. Especially Teenages, we had a mac lab at our high school, which was horrible run by the way, and the students always said, "These stupid macs!". I would ask why they are stupid, and they had no real answer. Where did this stereotype come from, and why does it still exist? My girlfriend happend to switch 4 people, including her teacher by giving a speech on Apple, with her iMac. When people see a NEW mac they are WOWED. I just wish this would happen more often.

I also enjoy the Pre-Highschool economics, lower prices->More Sales.;)

Yeah what you said! But check out the posters on this thread, most sound like pc users(lots of time on their hands?)
or owners of really old Macs, neither have used Jag with a new G4
with its firewire. This also means that they haven't used Apple inlcuded apps, such as Idvd,Iphoto, or Imovie. If they think dells firewire and included apps are of the same caliber, well I hope they just use their pc for games and the internet:D
Daniel

fourthtunz

Dec 22, 2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken

Typical response. So Joe User should buy a used 700MHz eMac/iMac for the same price as an new, upgradeable 1.8GHz Dell with 15" LCD monitor and warranty?

Do you want a job at Apple or something? :rolleyes:

I don't think I'll even dignify the OS and government comment with a real response.

Hey dude, all I'm saying is joe user is not going to buy pci cards and is going to have better apps, and a better experience with a Mac when they hook up their digi camera/camcorder.
I have no problen with XP, I don't think it is a good as MAC OSX.2 but, I have heard with xp their was some deal about the Government being sent info from each computer that uses it?
Not true? Well is there any truth to this?
YOu don't really think the $700 dell is going to give you the same quality and user experience as even a emac do you? Go ahead and take your firewire camcorder to an apple store and try out imovie, then try it on your dell, see what you think:)
Daniel

petee

Dec 22, 2002, 02:35 PM

The car analogy that I hear mac users is a bit ridiculous. the gist os which is that a peecee is = to a Honda or Yugo and a Mac is = to a Porsche, Mercedeces (sp), Austin Martin etc. I guess I find this a bit stupid because you never hear of a porsche owner handwringing over Porsche's market share in the auto industry, or how the company is going to woo the average car owner to their "brand". I have accepted the fact that Apple is niche platform. With the current "switch" promos, I'm not sure that Apple has. Can you imagine a "switch" ad for Rolls Royce? I think I would pay to see one.
If Apple is going to go the low price model than they would almost certainly have to go the X86 route. That would probably be a mistake unless they decided to get out of the hardware side. I disagree with a previous poster about Apple's prospects as a software comp only. Times are much different than 10 years ago. Linux is really worrying Microsoft because they are taking marketshare from them. (How many articles have we read about Microsoft bashing Apple? Makes me wonder if Apple is even on Microsoft's radar screen.) I just read an article two days ago that predicts Linux having more marketshare than Apple in a year or two. I think that spells more trouble for Apple than the prospects of Microsoft going to Unix. Its quite possible that the current business model of selling software is going to die in 5 years. (Playing oracle again, sorry.)
As for speed of computers... speed does matter. Somebody will always come up with an program that is going to tax current systems and will require more CPUs, larger memory bandwith etc. I think more people realize this than we are willing to credit.

An aside: I wonder if the designs of the iMacs have turned some potential customers away. Not because of their specs, but because of the trendiness of the designs. I think that some people (most) can live with the fact that their computer is not the latest of greatest and very few are interested in do-it-yourself upgrading. But no one wants to be stuck with the equivalent of a 70's style shiny polyester suit on their desk. Not that it is ugly, but that I may go out of fashion in the near future. I think that the reason Steve has gone this route is to make the computer another toaster in the house. An appliance. But I wonder if it backfired a bit. Has anybody heard of a potential customer "not making the Switch" because of the design of the iMac?

tgrundke

Dec 22, 2002, 03:10 PM

"Half the speed, twice the price" is just about right, kids. The "coolness" factor of Apple's products has worn out its welcome and we're now at a point where people are asking, "but is it worth it?"

Several issues that keep Apple back:
1) Un-upgradable video in iMac. For $1999, the imac 17" is a great, cool computer blessed with no video expansion. If you check industry trends, the #1 upgrade to old(er) computers is the video circuitry. Buying a $1999 machine that has 'no legs' to grow with me is a big turn-off.

2) Price/Performance level of desktop computers. Apple's PowerMac line simply is *not* price/performance competitve. Regardless what Apple says, consumers are used to the following equation: performance goes up, price goes down.

Apple, for obvious financial reasons, does *not* follow this equation. They maintain the same prices for speed values that are 12-18 months behind the mainstream. All myth aside, this is what the aggregate market sees.

Compared to the broader market, the 1.25ghz top of the line PowerMac G4 should be selling for sub-$1000, not $3499 plus. Clearly Apple cannot do that.

My point here is that Apple tries to convince Wall Street and mainstreet that it does not play by the same rules as the Wintel Industry, yet at the same time tries to convince everyone that it can, in fact, compete with the Wintel industry. Confusing message, isn't it?

And the reality is that Apple *does* compete with the Wintel industry - it competes for end users, it competes for software manufacturers' resources and efforts. Selling to Apple's installed base is a losing proposition in the long run, and this is one of the reasons you see Apple's stock price hovering around $15/share for the last two years: investors don't see much future upward growth in the company.

I've said it before and I'll restate it here: the megahertz myth is a great marketing tool, Apple is a great company when it comes to marketing. But if the company does not get its act together and release some price/performance competitive hardware very quickly, we're looking at a very bleak forecast.

The plus is that Apple is quickly approaching one of its "bet the company" periods that seems to pop up every few years like clockwork. The good side to this is that Apple is usually at its very best when its backed to the wall. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."

In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.

They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special14.htm) with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.

Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.

Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."

tgrundke

Dec 22, 2002, 03:18 PM

Correct: the automotive industry analogy is ass-backward and inappropriate upon close examination.

Once more, a good marketing slogan, as long as we don't start eating our own ************ and believing it.

To restate: The car analogy is inappropriate because cars do not require their own specialized gasoline or specialized roads to make them work. Apple "does" in that it requires a different subset of fuel and roads. Case closed.

As to the iMac trendiness, I would say that more of the problem with the iMac is not so much the trendiness, but the inability to customize it properly and upgrade it decently. If you buy the 15" model there's little opportunity to upgrade the monitor or the video card. If you buy the 17" (the only decent one, IMO) you still cannot upgrade the video. S o you are stuck with a $2000 computer whose second-most important component-the video card, cannot be upgraded.

The whole equation comes back to price/performance ratios. The switchers campaign is merely a diversion at the moment to keep us *off* of the price/performance issue. Apple would be far more successful in switching people if its price/performance were moer in check at the moment.

Originally posted by petee
The car analogy that I hear mac users is a bit ridiculous. the gist os which is that a peecee is = to a Honda or Yugo and a Mac is = to a Porsche, Mercedeces (sp), Austin Martin etc. I guess I find this a bit stupid because you never hear of a porsche owner handwringing over Porsche's market share in the auto industry, or how the company is going to woo the average car owner to their "brand". I have accepted the fact that Apple is niche platform. With the current "switch" promos, I'm not sure that Apple has. Can you imagine a "switch" ad for Rolls Royce? I think I would pay to see one.
If Apple is going to go the low price model than they would almost certainly have to go the X86 route. That would probably be a mistake unless they decided to get out of the hardware side. I disagree with a previous poster about Apple's prospects as a software comp only. Times are much different than 10 years ago. Linux is really worrying Microsoft because they are taking marketshare from them. (How many articles have we read about Microsoft bashing Apple? Makes me wonder if Apple is even on Microsoft's radar screen.) I just read an article two days ago that predicts
Linux having more marketshare than Apple in a year or two. I think that spells more trouble for Apple than the prospects of Microsoft going to Unix. Its quite possible that the current business model of selling software is going to die in 5 years. (Playing oracle again, sorry.)
As for speed of computers... speed does matter. Somebody will always come up with an program that is going to tax current systems and will require more CPUs, larger memory bandwith etc. I think more people realize this than we are willing to credit.

An aside: I wonder if the designs of the iMacs have turned some potential customers away. Not because of their specs, but because of the trendiness of the designs. I think that some people (most) can live with the fact that their computer is not the latest of greatest and very few are interested in do-it-yourself upgrading. But no one wants to be stuck with the equivalent of a 70's style shiny polyester suit on their desk. Not that it is ugly, but that I may go out of fashion in the near future. I think that the reason Steve has gone this route is to make the computer another toaster in the house. An appliance. But I wonder if it backfired a bit. Has anybody heard of a potential customer "not making the Switch" because of the design of the iMac?

arogge

Dec 22, 2002, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by blueBomber
why doesn't Apple pull the same thing AMD has done recently, put how fast the chip performs compared to the competition in the name instead of the actual clock speed.

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+ ;)

it could work...

I was going to suggest this idea, but I reconsidered. I'd be interested to hear about how many additional sales AMD has earned as a result of the Intel-compliant numbering scheme. The plan has one major flaw: Intel, with its tremendous manufacturing ability and cash reserves, can keep raising the MHz number of its own chips and AMD will lose every time. So AMD has a 2800+ and Apple has a 3000+ - Intel can simply name its new chip the 3500 MHz and make everyone else look slow by direct comparison. What Apple needs to do is create new ways to show how its computers are really of higher-quality than the likes of Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc. Having a gaming card for graphics in the PowerMac and PowerBook doesn't help. For computers that are generally more expensive than competitors' products, one should at least be able to find ATI Fire, NVIDIA Quadro4, Oxygen, or Wildcat graphics chips in them. By conforming to Intel's numbering scheme, companies like AMD only serve to dig a deeper hole for themselves as Intel continues to overclock the Pentium. Maybe if Apple went to 64-bit and competed against the Itanium with its lower MHz number, the game could start anew.

Bregalad

Dec 23, 2002, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Yeah what you said! But check out the posters on this thread, most sound like pc users(lots of time on their hands?)
or owners of really old Macs, neither have used Jag with a new G4
with its firewire. This also means that they haven't used Apple inlcuded apps, such as Idvd,Iphoto, or Imovie. If they think dells firewire and included apps are of the same caliber, well I hope they just use their pc for games and the internet:D
Daniel

Here's a quick hint Daniel, most consumers will never use a program like iDVD or even iMovie. Most consumers want a computer for email, games, web browsing, Quicken and Word, in that order. Now does it make sense that Apple only has a 3-4% market share?

Even a two year old PC with a market value of less than $300 will handle all of that including many games. The two year old PCs where I work seem to be able to play Battlefield 1942 quite well so it's only a tiny segment of the market that really needs a faster box.

That's why we're seeing such incredible deals on new PCs. Very few people need more than they already have. Dell, being one of the few PC makers with any money, is using this period to gain market share. In the business market I think they're succeeding too. In the home market the big growth is in the no-name area, the locally assembled machines. Kids are telling their parents that they can make them a better, faster computer than Dell can and save money at the same time. Gateway is probably going to go bankrupt again trying to match prices with local vendors while Dell is rich enough to be able to ride it out. There will always be a big segment of the market that wants a name brand computer, no matter how stupid such a purchase might be, and Dell wants every one of those people to buy from them.

I realize everything I've said seems to suggest that Apple is doing fine by advertising what you can do with a Mac and avoiding performance comparisons. Unfortunately 80% of computer buyers don't consider Apple, 50% of those who do see the price tag and run away screaming, and 50% of those who remain see the lower performance numbers and walk away. That leaves only 5% of buyers who will think seriously about getting a Mac. Clearly Apple is doing a fantastic job of selling to them because almost all of them do get a Mac.

I'm going to stop arguing at this point and simply tell you all why I know that my G4 will be replaced by another Mac. By the time I can justify the expense, Microsoft and Intel will probably have implemented their pieces of the Trusted Computing Platform. That means that anything a PC user wants to do will rely on a combination of hardware and software designed to keep you from doing anything with your PC that those companies don't want you doing. Redmond will have the ability to monitor practically everything Windows users do (whether they actually do it is another matter) and it'll even be hard for Linux users to get around the controls because they'll be built into the Pentium V and Itanium chips. Oh sure hacks will be available almost immediately, but when you want to do some online shopping without a Microsoft issued ID code, you'll be up a creek without a paddle.

Big Brother lives. His name is Steve Balmer and he's coming soon to a PC near you.

PS. The average consumer thinks "trusted computing" is a good thing. Be afraid, be very afraid.

solvs

Dec 23, 2002, 09:31 AM

I agree on the price issue. Apple should be using this time to gain market share (they're already playing to those who are fed up with Windows). "All that stuff you do with a PC, you can do it with a Mac, and fewer headaches". It looks like they're on the right track, lowering prices across the board (except for the Towers, for now). But with the MHz problem, they really should try a little harder. We don't want them going the Gateway route, but they need something to compete with Dell.

Too bad they don't sell a Do-It-Yourselfers kit.

As far as sped is concerned, I was just reading a couple of benchmarks. Some of them have titles like "Intel Slaughters the G4". Then you look at the scores. A top of the line P4 with more than twice the GHz #s is barely a few seconds faster on some tests. And a lot of them are memory and drive related. Of course benchmarks don't say much, I just care of real world performance, and getting the most bang for my buck.

Although a similarly configured PC (not a home built) isn't THAT much cheaper than a G4 (your results may vary).

So for a little more money for a little less performance. I think I can live with that.

Now bring on the cheap-a**, P4 a**-kicking Towers.

unifiedtheorist

Dec 23, 2002, 01:02 PM

for those of you that are worried about motorola's role in computer chip manufacturing in the future, you should check this out: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13309.html
i suspect that, much like apple, motorola spends more of its time trying to make new and better technology rather than pushing existing technology to its limits. so apple isn't the only company that prefers to "think different". of all people, mac users should know not to knock a company that is trying to change the face of an industry

tgrundke

Dec 23, 2002, 01:29 PM

The fatal problem here is this: Apple is more than welcome to 'push the envelope' and develop new, intriguing, ground-breaking products. However, in order to finance such endeavors, you must be able to sell an established product that can keep revenues and profits while the new product is introduced. Furthermore, if Motorola, as a key Apple supplier, is more interested in developing new markets and products than supporting its current ones (Apple, for example), then Apple needs to go shopping for new suppliers to fit ITS needs.

Being a developer of groundbreaking technologies and products is not easy nor cheap. You need an established product revenue stream to accomplish this. Moreover, technology partners whose dedication to needed components is minimal don't help much.

Originally posted by unifiedtheorist
for those of you that are worried about motorola's role in computer chip manufacturing in the future, you should check this out: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13309.html
i suspect that, much like apple, motorola spends more of its time trying to make new and better technology rather than pushing existing technology to its limits. so apple isn't the only company that prefers to "think different". of all people, mac users should know not to knock a company that is trying to change the face of an industry

reversereligion

Dec 24, 2002, 10:30 PM

i personally hate how mac obsesses over case design. I feel like I'm paying a lot of extra r&d money for a purely cosmetic feature. i put my cpu in a closet anyway to cut down on noise.

my personal taste for cases is simple:
big and cheap, so you can cram a lot of hard drives in and modify easily.

there are plenty of rather serviceable generic cases out there that open up very easily. nice big server styled ones... fit lots of stuff no problem.

there are only two reasons I use a mac: the os is stable and it runs the software I like. But even know I use PC's. I'm kind of schizophrenic. mac's price/performance ratio really sucks right now. i can build a pc twice as fast/twice the ram/twice the hd space as the most powerful mac, and do it at half the cost.

in fact, that is what i will be doing over the winter.

Originally posted by mrpepsi

I guess I never really thought about it that way. With a BMW or Mercedes you get a faster, more comfortable, safer vehicle. With a Mac you get style and stability.

What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

reversereligion

Dec 24, 2002, 10:45 PM

i think the hardcore mac loyalists are in complete denial when they say "mhz doesn't matter".

If right now Apples had higher mhz, all the mac-heads would be gloating wildly "we're the best...look we've got the highest mhz... wintel sucks...blah blah blah"

rather, right now mac-heads are trying to justify their small endowment in the face of noticably bigger contestants... sad really.

look at *software* for a moment. what does it say on the box in terms of system requirements. it's always the same three things:
1) which version of the operating system it will run on
2) how much ram you need
3) minimum/recommended processor speed, in mhz

are all these software designers stupid?

who here would really trade in their 1ghz mac for a 233mhz and not care, because mhz "doesn't matter"

let's get real. the truth is that motorola is sucking wind in getting clock speeds up. moore's law states that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months. apple hasn't gone anywhere, while wintel keeps pace.

apple really looks like a wimp boxer inside a fancy ring-robe at the moment. macs can dance around the ring all they want, and dance they must, because the real punch is coming from the wintel platform.

don't get hit apple, you'll get knocked out in the first round.

kansaigaijin

Dec 24, 2002, 10:54 PM

you are right.

but what matters now is that Apple knows it has a problem, even if mac users don't. They probably have a plan B to deal with it.

the users may be in denial, but according to the 10-K filing, the company is not. That is encouraging. The only real solution? Take Marklar to market.

Sauron's Master

Dec 24, 2002, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by reversereligion
i think the hardcore mac loyalists are in complete denial when they say "mhz doesn't matter".

If right now Apples had higher mhz, all the mac-heads would be gloating wildly "we're the best...look we've got the highest mhz... wintel sucks...blah blah blah"

rather, right now mac-heads are trying to justify their small endowment in the face of noticably bigger contestants... sad really.

look at *software* for a moment. what does it say on the box in terms of system requirements. it's always the same three things:
1) which version of the operating system it will run on
2) how much ram you need
3) minimum/recommended processor speed, in mhz

are all these software designers stupid?

who here would really trade in their 1ghz mac for a 233mhz and not care, because mhz "doesn't matter"

let's get real. the truth is that motorola is sucking wind in getting clock speeds up. moore's law states that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months. apple hasn't gone anywhere, while wintel keeps pace.

apple really looks like a wimp boxer inside a fancy ring-robe at the moment. macs can dance around the ring all they want, and dance they must, because the real punch is coming from the wintel platform.

don't get hit apple, you'll get knocked out in the first round.
Yes, we mac fanatics would be gloating if we had higher mhz on our processors. Do you know why? Because with the superior architecture of the G4 and altivec, we would be kicking ass like in the days of the 603e's and 604e's. The mhz myth is the concept that that mhz is not an accurate measurement of speed of processors based on different architectures or occasionally, different chipsets. They wouldn't trade in a 1 ghz mac for a 233 mhz mac because they're identical architectures and one is definitely faster. However, I would bet that they would trade in a 1 ghz PIII or Celeron for something like a 233 mhz MIPS R14k or Power4 chip. Motorola is lagging because they are far more interested in embedded chips. Apple should seriously dump them unless you want a G4 about as fast as your graphing calculator or cell phone. Macs, unfortunately, are slower but with the release of the PPC 970 sometime in late 2003 or early 2004, we should be back on track. Its emulation for 32 bit applications is superior to that of the Itanium chips, which will matter until most apps are converted to 64 bit and it has faster clock speed. :-D. IBM is far superior to Motorola in terms of chip-making abilities. If Apple had stuck with IBM, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Yes, Macs are slower than PC's but I think that all of us can survive another 9-12 monthes of waiting if only to prepare our bank accounts for some spending. ;-).

Sauron's Master

Dec 24, 2002, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
you are right.

but what matters now is that Apple knows it has a problem, even if mac users don't. They probably have a plan B to deal with it.

the users may be in denial, but according to the 10-K filing, the company is not. That is encouraging. The only real solution? Take Marklar to market.

I hope you were being sarcastic. Take Marklar to market? The instant Marklar goes to market, it means that Apple will collapse very soon. If it even exists, Marklar would be Apple's last resort plan to save itself. Would anyone even buy it? No programs would natively run in it without Apple having convert them. No drivers for external devices. Nothing. Just an Unix-like OS called OS X on a PC. I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.

kansaigaijin

Dec 25, 2002, 12:09 AM

so SM do you have an argument to explain why apple would collapse?

why doesn't M$ collapse? it is just an OS on a PC. and a hated one at that. They only make money on the OS and Office, and at an 85% margin!

If it even exists? it does, and apple keeps it up-to-date in parralel with PPC updates.

How can you get more than a few PC users to switch when it means they have to buy a whole new computer, at great expense? Or they could simply install an new OS. Quite simple when it is an Apple OS. Got to pay for all that OS development cost somehow, and the purchase of Next.

Sauron's Master

Dec 25, 2002, 12:39 AM

Yes, I have an explanation to my argument. Apple has a viable OS that is superior to anything else available on the market. It also has viable hardware (or semi depending on your opinion.) It actually has an OS able to run a sufficient number of programs including industry-standard ones in graphics, and other fields. Why the hell would Apple decide to release an OS with virtually no software for it? Apple has a competent sales and marketing staff. They know that Apple wouldn't need something like Marklar unless Apple was on the brink of collapse and desperate. Do you have any proof that Marklar exists? Apple already has at least one major software update in the next year, and are removing OS 9 to reduce the problem of developing for two platforms. They don't need to and can't really afford to waste time on some half-baked idea. Where does Apple make money? Hardware, not software. They need to sell more G4's, not more copies of OS X. MS isn't collapsing because it has a monopoly and has the majority of the apps available. Marklar would have neither of those advantages and many, many more disadvantages. Yes, they need to pay for software development. What's the most effective way of doing that? Sell more computers and stuff that makes them a lot of money.

kansaigaijin

Dec 25, 2002, 12:52 AM

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

Sauron's Master

Dec 25, 2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

That article is old and is comprised of mostly speculation, and quotes from alleged sources, and very little verifiable fact. In fact, it shoots itself in the foot several times when it admits to the fact that Marklar would have to have entire applications reprogrammed. This is after an immense amount of time spent on carbonization and soon, 64-bit applications. I seriously doubt any software company has that much resources, time, and energy to waste on that. They have OS X and PC versions already. They're not going to develop an Marklar version. I'd think they'd much rather work on 64 bit versions which might actually offer them an advantage.

tgrundke

Dec 25, 2002, 08:47 AM

I am always highly amused by those who make carpet statements such as "If Marklar goes to market, Apple will be dead," without making elaborations as to their rationale.

Marklar is a good opportunity for Apple, and if you think it's Apple's death knell, please elaborate.

Originally posted by Sauron's Master

I hope you were being sarcastic. Take Marklar to market? The instant Marklar goes to market, it means that Apple will collapse very soon. If it even exists, Marklar would be Apple's last resort plan to save itself. Would anyone even buy it? No programs would natively run in it without Apple having convert them. No drivers for external devices. Nothing. Just an Unix-like OS called OS X on a PC. I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.

Sauron's Master

Dec 25, 2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by tgrundke
I am always highly amused by those who make carpet statements such as "If Marklar goes to market, Apple will be dead," without making elaborations as to their rationale.

Marklar is a good opportunity for Apple, and if you think it's Apple's death knell, please elaborate.

If you actually bothered to read my post(s), you would have seen my reasons. I am amused by people who never bother to actually the post and then make carper statements about their amusement about others. Read my posts, and answer this question: how is it a good opportunity?

cubist

Dec 25, 2002, 11:51 AM

... could have a Sahara G3 processor, say at 1GHz; use PC-133 SDRAM; use regular IDE drives and 4X AGP video. It comes with a el cheapo video card but offer a lot of BTO upgrades. It comes with a CD-RW drive. iMovie 3 needs to burn VCDs out of the box.

The case needs to be simplified from the huge complexity of the MDD El Capitan.

The motherboard is simpler too. Just a single ATA bus, ethernet, firewire, 2 USBs, 2 PCI slots. Modem and airport optional. Keyboard, mouse and monitor all extra. The stock card has only a VGA connector.

Call it the cMac. Discontinue the old G3 iMac. I think Apple could make a profit selling it for $799, and I don't think it'd hurt sales of any other Apple machine at all.

tgrundke

Dec 25, 2002, 02:15 PM

Sauron:

I apologize, but your message about Marklar's advantages had not posted by the time I submitted my reply.

And a suggestion for future reference: avoid smart-ass responses to people who don't have a bone to pick with you, and you'll carry much more credibility.

Originally posted by Sauron's Master

If you actually bothered to read my post(s), you would have seen my reasons. I am amused by people who never bother to actually the post and then make carper statements about their amusement about others. Read my posts, and answer this question: how is it a good opportunity?

Sauron's Master

Dec 25, 2002, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by tgrundke
Sauron:

I apologize, but your message about Marklar's advantages had not posted by the time I submitted my reply.

And a suggestion for future reference: avoid smart-ass responses to people who don't have a bone to pick with you, and you'll carry much more credibility.

I apologize for my rudeness. I assumed you had read my post(s) and were avoiding or such. However, I don't see how it has anything to do with credibility. If I was quoting false sources and making less than accurate arguments , sure but my comments did none of that. Again, I apologize. I'll remember to save smart-ass responses for when it is required.;)

petee

Dec 25, 2002, 04:01 PM

I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.
[B]

So, if Apple goes to Maklar
(which I think may be a mistake but the future of computing is always hard to read) Where would you and the other Apple fanatics go to for your computing needs? Microsoft, Linux, etc. Aren't you just cutting your nose off in spite of yourself. I have heard this comment several times. When I think of Apple computers I think of the OS, not the hardware. (Except the one button mouses. If people are as clueless about computers as has been speculated on this forum, then said clueless people would not be thrown by the introduction of a x86 Apple product. Remember, Walmart is selling many of the Linux-based computers. And Linux is even less known than Apple. At least people may have been exposed to Apple when they were in school at one time or another. I know there are issues with sopftware, but if people start buying an x86 Apple the software companies will make the software to go with it. Maybe Linux is going to have to be the model for computer companies for a while.

Sauron's Master

Dec 25, 2002, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by petee
I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.
[B]

So, if Apple goes to Maklar
(which I think may be a mistake but the future of computing is always hard to read) Where would you and the other Apple fanatics go to for your computing needs? Microsoft, Linux, etc. Aren't you just cutting your nose off in spite of yourself. I have heard this comment several times. When I think of Apple computers I think of the OS, not the hardware. (Except the one button mouses. If people are as clueless about computers as has been speculated on this forum, then said clueless people would not be thrown by the introduction of a x86 Apple product. Remember, Walmart is selling many of the Linux-based computers. And Linux is even less known than Apple. At least people may have been exposed to Apple when they were in school at one time or another. I know there are issues with sopftware, but if people start buying an x86 Apple the software companies will make the software to go with it. Maybe Linux is going to have to be the model for computer companies for a while.
If Apple goes to Marklar, it means they've released their last resort plan which essentially means that the Mac platform is probably screwed. Where would I go for computing? Linux, Unix, Irix, or any variants would all be fine. IBM is releasing the PPC 970 with Linux for sure anyway so there wouldn't really be a problem. I stick with Macs because it has both decent hardware and extremely good software. I started using macs when macs were kicking x86 ass in speed comparisons. While their hardware edge is blunt if existent at all, their OS is absolutely awesome. I will stick with Macs until Apple decides to screw up their software base by releasing yet another platform to develop. They've got hardware issues due to Motorola, they really can't afford to screw up their software. Marklar will be yet another platform for companies to code for, we don't need them to waster resources on that, we need them to optimize their current programs for OS X on PPC and convert them to 64-bit later on. I seriously doubt that many companies will bother to redevelop for Marklar and there is the problem of drivers which probably need to be programmed. The point is that Marklar would just reduce resources Apple and other companies can use on OS X programs which would hurt OS X. Apple is smart to realize that, the only reason they would release Marklar is as a last resort which to me, means time to switch to Unix or something similar.

fourthtunz

Dec 25, 2002, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Bregalad

Here's a quick hint Daniel, most consumers will never use a program like iDVD or even iMovie. Most consumers want a computer for email, games, web browsing, Quicken and Word, in that order. Now does it make sense that Apple only has a 3-4% market share?

Even a two year old PC with a market value of less than $300 will handle all of that including many games. The two year old PCs where I work seem to be able to play Battlefield 1942 quite well so it's only a tiny segment of the market that really needs a faster box.

Thanks for the Hint, but as more people get digi cameras and camcorders , they will want those apps, as my pc using in laws can attest. They were blown away at how easy it is to connect their new toys to a Mac, which they couldn't get to work with their new Intel4 PCS. Your 2 year pc maybe able to handle the processing but the key here is the firewire card and editing software, try this with your new or 2 year old pc, good luck.
You can buy a new $799 imac and do all of the crap you mentioned up top and edit your christmas movie. If you can't afford a $799 imac then you ain't gonna have cameras and such anyway.
Daniel

kansaigaijin

Dec 26, 2002, 08:43 AM

from Cnet,

With the investment write-down, restructuring and other items, Apple posted a net loss of $45 million, or 13 cents per share, on revenue of $1.44 billion. That compares with a net profit of $66 million, or 19 cents per share, on revenue of $1.45 billion in the year-ago quarter.

Excluding items, Apple met expectations with a profit of $7 million, or 2 cents per share.

tgrundke

Dec 26, 2002, 08:52 AM

Sauron:

When Apple announced plans to buy Be, Inc. and then eventually purchased NeXT, almost everyone considered it to be Apple's "last resort". Check out Macintosh magazines, trade publications, anything from 1996 and you'll see that as the prominent thread. Businessweek ran the most damning cover story in 1996, a black page with an Apple logo on it titled, "The Death of an American Icon".

THAT was last resort.

What it sounds like you are saying is that you will drop Apple if they go to Marklar because you are *assuming* that the software will be destroyed by said move to Intel/compatible chips.

Sauron: If a 'switch' were to be made, rest assured that the potential damage and inconvenience to developers would be as limited as possible. It also does not predispose the platform to suddenly having crappy software that you imply.

The fears you have are the same ones displayed in Apple's 1994 move to the PowerPC codebase and the same fears about the adoption of OS X. Everything Apple does these days *IS* a last resort: since 1997 forward Apple has been 'betting the company' on a daily basis. The iMac was a 'last resort' product. OS X was a 'last resort' product.

Don't worry.

Originally posted by Sauron's Master

If Apple goes to Marklar, it means they've released their last resort plan which essentially means that the Mac platform is probably screwed. Where would I go for computing? Linux, Unix, Irix, or any variants would all be fine. IBM is releasing the PPC 970 with Linux for sure anyway so there wouldn't really be a problem. I stick with Macs because it has both decent hardware and extremely good software. I started using macs when macs were kicking x86 ass in speed comparisons. While their hardware edge is blunt if existent at all, their OS is absolutely awesome. I will stick with Macs until Apple decides to screw up their software base by releasing yet another platform to develop. They've got hardware issues due to Motorola, they really can't afford to screw up their software. Marklar will be yet another platform for companies to code for, we don't need them to waster resources on that, we need them to optimize their current programs for OS X on PPC and convert them to 64-bit later on. I seriously doubt that many companies will bother to redevelop for Marklar and there is the problem of drivers which probably need to be programmed. The point is that Marklar would just reduce resources Apple and other companies can use on OS X programs which would hurt OS X. Apple is smart to realize that, the only reason they would release Marklar is as a last resort which to me, means time to switch to Unix or something similar.

Sauron's Master

Dec 26, 2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
from Cnet,

With the investment write-down, restructuring and other items, Apple posted a net loss of $45 million, or 13 cents per share, on revenue of $1.44 billion. That compares with a net profit of $66 million, or 19 cents per share, on revenue of $1.45 billion in the year-ago quarter.

Excluding items, Apple met expectations with a profit of $7 million, or 2 cents per share.

Apple's total profit has nothing or very little to do with its margins. Per unit, Apple has a huge margin of profit hence their high prices. However, Apple has other expenses, like paying its employees which are not figured into profit margins per unit. I would expect profits to be down. Why? The entire economy is in a slump especially the tech sector. Apple is faced with those problems and the fact that its hardware is lagging.

First, in 1996, Apple was very close to collapsing anyway. Sales were bad and profits sucked. Apple probably would have died if Stever Jobs hadn't returned and the iMac wasn't released.

I will drop Apple if it's moving Marklar and other signs are present that Apple is about to go down. Hanging onto a platform with no further updates for software or hardware is pretty useless. I'm not saying that Marklar would cause all software for any version of OS X will suck. I am however saying that a lot of software companies will not have resources to program software for three different OS's and even if they do, their resources will probably be spread thin which could likely result in worse quality software overall. Apple moved to OS X because it had to, otherwise, every part of its products would lag behind Microsoft's and Intel's. I'd rather that they bet the company when they have to rather than being addicted to it and doing it everyday. Everyone loses eventually if you keep on betting and Apple is probably going to too if it continues the put the company on the line strategy although I think now, with $4.2 billion in the back, it's not really a problem. As long as Apple looks alive, I'm sticking with it but if they release Marklar and it becomes continually worse, it would be in my best interests to switch.