PDA

View Full Version : Apple Gaining Marketshare, Mindshare




MacRumors
Aug 22, 2007, 12:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The latest numbers are looking good for Apple, especially in the Laptop market.

According to a ChangeWave survey (http://changewave.com/freecontent/viewarticle.html?source=/freecontent/2007/08/alliance-consumerPC-082107.html), Apple's laptop share gained 5% over the past 90 days and is roughly 5% higher than a year ago, now sitting at 17%. The survey also indicates that 28% of potential buyers over the next 90 days will be choosing an Apple Laptop, and 23% choosing an Apple desktop.

In addition to the survey's findings, NPD data (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/08/21/appleshare/index.php) reported by Macworld pins June 2007 notebook retail market share at 17.6%, an increase of 2.2% over last year.

Overall, NPD places Apple as the 3rd largest US computer manufacturer, with a 5.9% U.S. market share, up 1.1% from last year's numbers.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/22/apple-gaining-marketshare-mindshare/)



~Shard~
Aug 22, 2007, 12:09 PM
Great to see the marketshare gaining. Hopefully Apple can keep up with rising demand and consumer expectations. There are also potential QA issues due to production scale which hopefully Apple remains on top of.

Eidorian
Aug 22, 2007, 12:10 PM
More job opportunities for me. :D

~Shard~
Aug 22, 2007, 12:12 PM
More job opportunities for me. :D

More Macs out there is a good thing for a number of reasons. ;)

Eidorian
Aug 22, 2007, 12:13 PM
More Macs out there is a good thing for a number of reasons. ;)Still, being an Macintosh administrator and being able to handle nearly any out of warranty repair doesn't hurt either. :p

Shagrat
Aug 22, 2007, 12:14 PM
Just waiting for those negative votes...!

currentinterest
Aug 22, 2007, 12:16 PM
How could a machine with such crippled graphics sell so well? Could it be that Apple has a good idea of who their customer really is?

midge99
Aug 22, 2007, 12:16 PM
this is negative! more market share means more reason to development osX viruses, no?

Eidorian
Aug 22, 2007, 12:17 PM
this is negative! more market share means more reason to development osX viruses, no?That's entirely debatable.

FoxyKaye
Aug 22, 2007, 12:18 PM
My question is when will developers start paying attention? Blackbaud, ArcView, QuickBooks (which is definitely not the same between Winsows and OS X), Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Glidepoint (USB Overdrive is not a substitute for real drivers), and a bunch more. Even SPSS and Palm (before they realized they have nothing to sell) abandoned Macs for a while.

Switching to a Mac is great, but having to kludge stuff that has been on the Windows platform for years could just as easily turn a lot of folks off after that first purchase.

Hell, I'd be happy if some of these folks even used Cider.

AidenShaw
Aug 22, 2007, 12:19 PM
Just waiting for those negative votes...!

They'll be there - probably from people complaining that someone snuck in another story about Apple computers rather than music players and telephones....

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 12:22 PM
How could a machine with such crippled graphics sell so well? Could it be that Apple has a good idea of who their customer really is?
Because 99% of people outside of enthusiast community/forums for both Macs and PCs could care less about video cards. I'd be willing to wager most couldn't even tell you what one is. They only care about if they can see the email/webpages on their screen. That's it. Same reason why 99% of people listen to music on terrible speakers, because they don't care.

Frisco
Aug 22, 2007, 12:26 PM
My question is when will developers start paying attention? Blackbaud, ArcView, QuickBooks (which is definitely not the same between Winsows and OS X), Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Glidepoint (USB Overdrive is not a substitute for real drivers), and a bunch more. Even SPSS and Palm (before they realized they have nothing to sell) abandoned Macs for a while.

Switching to a Mac is great, but having to kludge stuff that has been on the Windows platform for years could just as easily turn a lot of folks off after that first purchase.

Hell, I'd be happy if some of these folks even used Cider.

Maybe they are buying Apple laptops to run Windows :eek:

crap freakboy
Aug 22, 2007, 12:26 PM
Good for Apple, just hope they can stop the crap build quality that is flowing out of China. Yellow screens, uneven keyboard keys and lids not closing evenly should not be expected on premium priced MBPros.

puckhead193
Aug 22, 2007, 12:27 PM
could explain why the delay in my brothers mbp.... now where is my..i mean his CS 3 web premium....

goodcow
Aug 22, 2007, 12:30 PM
Good for Apple, just hope they can stop the crap build quality that is flowing out of China. Yellow screens, uneven keyboard keys and lids not closing evenly should not be expected on premium priced MBPros.

I agree, I've gone though all these parts on my MacBook Pro:

LEFT I/O BOARD
RIGHT FAN
THREE MagSafe Adapters
TWO batteries

porky
Aug 22, 2007, 12:31 PM
Because 99% of people outside of enthusiast community/forums for both Macs and PCs could care less about video cards. I'd be willing to wager most couldn't even tell you what one is. They only care about if they can see the email/webpages on their screen. That's it. Same reason why 99% of people listen to music on terrible speakers, because they don't care.

Don't care? That's why the PC game industry is so huge!!! So what do we need? A desktop Mac with a removable VGA card, like an 8600GTS or 8800GTX :) And for less than 4000 dollar please.

amac4me
Aug 22, 2007, 12:33 PM
Way to go Apple :D

flopticalcube
Aug 22, 2007, 12:34 PM
Don't care? That's why the PC game industry is so huge!!! So what do we need? A desktop Mac with a removable VGA card, like an 8600GTS or 8800GTX :) And for less than 4000 dollar please.

Last I heard from NPD, PC gaming was 1/5th the size of the console market and shrinking.

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 12:35 PM
Don't care? That's why the PC game industry is so huge!!! So what do we need? A desktop Mac with a removable VGA card, like an 8600GTS or 8800GTX :) And for less than 4000 dollar please.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the PC game industry is absolutely MINISCULE compared to the rest of the planets computing needs. If you want to get into the highend enthusiast cards where companies like ATI/Nvidia make absolutely nothing, then that % tanks down to almost nonexistent. Low end, consumer/business grade video cards are where ALL the money is made. Granted that ATI card in the new iMacs is absolute dick, but it doesn't matter to anyone besides that 1%.

porky
Aug 22, 2007, 12:37 PM
Last I heard from NPD, PC gaming was 1/5th the size of the console market and shrinking.

1/5 of an industry that is bigger than the movie industry. Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc? I don't. But hey, so what. Bye EA, bye ID.

GFLPraxis
Aug 22, 2007, 12:39 PM
How could a machine with such crippled graphics sell so well? Could it be that Apple has a good idea of who their customer really is?


"Crippled" isn't the word; it's still better than a number of new cards sold in stores, it's better than what comes with EVERY Dell, Gateway, eMachines, and Sony sold in stores (have you ever been in a computer store? Nobody sells anything but integrated graphics in CompUSA and Best Buy, graphics cards are sold separately), and it's capable of running any game currently on the market and Final Cut Pro.

Most people don't care for more.

Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc?

Tons and tons and tons. Almost everybody owns a PC these days, and the majority of people I know aren't gamers.

Walk in to a random Best Buy and walk up to random people and ask them if they own a computer and if they play games.

That actually might skewer the results because most of them will say, "oh yes, I play Bejeweled and Solitaire".

stagi
Aug 22, 2007, 12:46 PM
Awesome, hope things keep accelerating! Keep going up APPL :)

MacsAttack
Aug 22, 2007, 12:48 PM
Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc?

I'm kind of hard pressed to think of anybody who does play games on their pc these days...

Very telling was the keynote Steve gave when launching the iPhone. His Keynote slides included a nice little graph to show just how big the mobile phone market was (which is why Apple wanted into that market - even a 1% slice of the pie represents a massive amount of money). The slide also showed the games consol market - a very small (comparitivly) market. No wonder Apple has not tried to create its own games machine.

And the market for pc games is even smaller (and shrinking year by year).

Things are not improved any by the whole games market being a creative graveyard. I don't think I've seen an origional idea for 10 years.

milo
Aug 22, 2007, 12:53 PM
Don't care? That's why the PC game industry is so huge!!!

Is it? I thought the PC game market was a drop in the bucket compared to console gaming.

Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc?

Yeah, tons. Probably 10% or less of the people I know do gaming beyond things like solitaire and minesweeper.

midge99
Aug 22, 2007, 12:58 PM
Great to see the marketshare gaining. Hopefully Apple can keep up with rising demand and consumer expectations. There are also potential QA issues due to production scale which hopefully Apple remains on top of.

Not to mention the software updates. Those will be coming often once hackers move their efforts to Macs. :apple:

bennyboi
Aug 22, 2007, 01:00 PM
More marketshare means more awareness means gamers take a look and come blast on macrumors. Can apple just spend a couple more dollars for satisfactory grfx cards (for gamers) just to shut them up? I'm just tired of it already. Sheesh. True Mac users are generally very productive people. Games aren't their #1 priority. Get over it. :)

yayaba
Aug 22, 2007, 01:01 PM
1/5 of an industry that is bigger than the movie industry. Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc? I don't. But hey, so what. Bye EA, bye ID.

I used to, I don't anymore except for when Starcraft 2 comes out.

Barely any of my friends play games at all but when they do at least they prefer consoles to PC's. The only need I would have for a better graphics card than the Intel integrated is so my expose and dashboard don't lag when I have a 20" LCD hooked up.

nsayer
Aug 22, 2007, 01:03 PM
So, this is just anecdotal evidence, but I thought it was pretty funny. I was at the mall and was able to compare the traffic at the Apple store to a Dell kiosk. The pictures are at my blog (http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/blog/2007/08/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-other.html).

geerlingguy
Aug 22, 2007, 01:04 PM
I just installed Parallels (using a Boot Camp Vista partition), and it is awesome. Apple's done it right with the Intel switchover. Many originally were worried that Apple made a bad move going to Intel (e.g. "There will be no reason for people to switch to a Mac once the processors are the same!"), but I think Apple's been batting about .999 on the Intel wagon (starting with the fact that they don't use the dingy Intel Inside logo).

:apple:

bananas
Aug 22, 2007, 01:05 PM
Tons and tons and tons. Almost everybody owns a PC these days, and the majority of people I know aren't gamers.

Walk in to a random Best Buy and walk up to random people and ask them if they own a computer and if they play games.

That actually might skewer the results because most of them will say, "oh yes, I play Bejeweled and Solitaire".

funny that ATi and Nvidia even bother to make those high end graphics cards...

i bet there are at least million people out there who would buy a Mac for gaming, too small market for :apple: ? well sony has no problems taking my money..

nsayer
Aug 22, 2007, 01:06 PM
Yeah, tons. Probably 10% or less of the people I know do gaming beyond things like solitaire and minesweeper.

I play games almost daily on my mac... but I don't suppose online Poker is what you had in mind. Hey, it's kind of like an MMORPG... :)

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 01:08 PM
funny that ATi and Nvidia even bother to make those high end graphics cards...

i bet there are at least million people out there who would buy a Mac for gaming, too small market for :apple: ? well sony has no problems taking my money..
It is funny, because they make nothing from them.

MacsAttack
Aug 22, 2007, 01:08 PM
How could a machine with such crippled graphics sell so well? Could it be that Apple has a good idea of who their customer really is?

I think a lot of people are not paying attention to what Apple is trying to do - especially with the new iMac.

1. Easy to recycle. It is no fluke that Steve stressed just how recyclable the new iMac is. Not only is it good PR, but with a number of governments talking about adding the cost of recycling electrical goods (including computers) onto the price Dell (and other box shifters) may be in for a rude surprise when their low end systems suddenly double in price and they have to go through the painful process of redesigning them to be more eco-friendly. When apple moves to LED backlit displays (as they have said the will), they are going to be in a nice position.

2. Power consumption. Just as recycling is a nightmare looming on the horizon for other computer manufacturers, the possibility of extra punative taxes on power-guzzeling electronic goods lurks in the future. While many of the design considerations on the iMac were to keep the heat and noise under control, there is the incidental spin-off that the thing eats less power.

The graphics chip manufacturers have arrived at the point that intel did with their ill-conceived P4. High performance designs eat too much power and generate too much heat. Intel fixed things with their Core and Core 2 chips. Nvidia and AMD need to do the same.

Apple is looking to the future. Unfortunately we have to wait for the graphics chip manufactures to deliver yesterday's graphics chips today.

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 01:17 PM
Apple is looking to the future. Unfortunately we have to wait for the graphics chip manufactures to deliver yesterday's graphics chips today.
Read up on the difference between GPU and CPU design. CPU design is based on the "full custom" model. This development process has long development times as each individual component is hand optimized. On the other hand GPU are built use the "cell based" design approach. This uses library sets of generic "cells" from design applications that are already established. Part efficiency and performance is sacrificed for turn around time.

Evangelion
Aug 22, 2007, 01:18 PM
Is it? I thought the PC game market was a drop in the bucket compared to console gaming.

It might be smaller, but it's not tiny when compared to consoles. And there are few things to remember here:

a) Gamers spend a lot of money on their hardware. What better group of consumers to go after?

b) Gamers are usually quite knowledgeable about computers, and they often consult their frieds and families when it comes to computers. Turning those people in to Mac-users would bring others around them to the fold as well.

c) Consoles will never replace computers in gaming. Some games are simply better on computers than on consoles (and vice versa of course).

Yeah, tons. Probably 10% or less of the people I know do gaming beyond things like solitaire and minesweeper.

And that 10% spends a lot of money on computers. And even that 10% is a huge number of people.

Small White Car
Aug 22, 2007, 01:20 PM
How could a machine with such crippled graphics sell so well? Could it be that Apple has a good idea of who their customer really is?

I've had 5 different first-time Mac buyers come to me over the last 5 months and ask about laptops. I had each person explain to me what they want to do with their computer and NOT ONE of them gave me any reason to suggest the Macbook Pro.

They all got Macbooks and are very happy with them. For the majority of computer users, the Macbook's specs are more than enough.

Jimmni
Aug 22, 2007, 01:23 PM
Hopefully Apple can keep up with rising demand and consumer expectations.

They already aren't:

http://www.armelline.com/ihateapplesupport/

MacsAttack
Aug 22, 2007, 01:23 PM
Read up on the difference between GPU and CPU design. CPU design is based on the "full custom" model. This development process has long development times as each individual component is hand optimized. On the other hand GPU are built use the "cell based" design approach. This uses sets generic "cells" from design applications that are already established. Part efficiency and performance is sacrificed for turn around time.

Which is why all the graphics chips use efficient 60nm and 45nm production processes to produce a product that has lower power consumption and thus generates less heat?

Oh wait.....

50548
Aug 22, 2007, 01:24 PM
It's obvious that Apple will step up to something like 15% or 20% of the market in less than 2 years, and get to the 3rd spot in its main markets; it's firing on all fronts, and this includes the corporate market with both Macs and the iPhone (as a basis for yet more halo effect).

A thousand years after the launch of the iPod, and NO player has been able to supersede it; the same happens with the iTMS. The new revision will just keep it up.

As for Macs, no other maker has the same levels of quality, reliability, OS, design and security, it's a simple fact that no one can deny. Apart from specialized gaming markets or the low-end of the scale, Apple's offerings are more than appealing to the market, and even more so with the dual-boot possibilities.

And yeah, I just checked the new iMac in person today...the glossy screen is simply a NON-issue to most users. You can barely bother about it, even in a well-lit environment such as the Apple shop I went to.

Apple's machines are simply awesome, and there's never been such a bad time for Apple bashers or PC zealots in this forum...their arguments are slowly slimming down to zero...:rolleyes:

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 01:25 PM
Which is why all the graphics chips use efficient 60nm and 45nm production processes to produce a product that has lower power consumption and thus generates less heat?

Oh wait.....
I don't know what you are getting at, but GPU manufacturers do not have anywhere close to the resources that CPU manufacturers do. It's the reason behind many of the design and manufacturing choices.

milo
Aug 22, 2007, 01:27 PM
And that 10% spends a lot of money on computers. And even that 10% is a huge number of people.

Sorry, I just don't buy that. Got any hard numbers on what % of computer users do "serious" gaming?

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 01:27 PM
It's obvious that Apple will step up to something like 15% or 20% of the market in less than 2 years, and get to the 3rd spot in its main markets; it's firing on all fronts, and this includes the corporate market with both Macs and the iPhone (as a basis for yet more halo effect).:
LOL...you've LOST it if you believe they will have 15-20% market share in 2 years.

icecone
Aug 22, 2007, 01:32 PM
Anyone fears that price will go up if apple gains enough market share?
It's monopoly (only it ships computer with Mac OS X)

gkhaldi
Aug 22, 2007, 01:32 PM
They already aren't:

http://www.armelline.com/ihateapplesupport/

That is not very representative for Apple across the globe, now is it?:confused:

milo
Aug 22, 2007, 01:34 PM
LOL...you've LOST it if you believe they will have 15-20% market share in 2 years.

I assume he meant 15-20% of sales, not of installed base.

If they are able to make 17% of laptop sales in a month now, and the trend has been upward for all their machines, why is this so unrealistic?

MacTheSpoon
Aug 22, 2007, 01:35 PM
28% and 24%.... wow. Those are incredible numbers. Really impressive.

50548
Aug 22, 2007, 01:47 PM
I assume he meant 15-20% of sales, not of installed base.

If they are able to make 17% of laptop sales in a month now, and the trend has been upward for all their machines, why is this so unrealistic?

Yes, 15% or 20% of all current sales; actually the installed base might be even bigger with time, considering that Macs last MUCH MORE than any crappy PC out there.

seashellz
Aug 22, 2007, 01:50 PM
LOL...you've LOST it if you believe they will have 15-20% market share in 2 years.

Not necessarily...in the past year ive convinced FIVE confirmed PC head to get a Mac;

And they are so-well, dont know how else to describe it....greatful-like in the running Window was always a headache, whearas Macs are so clean.
Howver Im certian of the fact that they can also use Windoze if they needed to was a factor

Exponentially Mac use could spread like wildfire if those two told 2 friend, who told 2 friends etc.

But APPLE needs to stick with quality issues.
I took a new eMac back after it died in the first week.
My friends first Macbook was taken back later in the afternoon the day she bought it, when it started acting funny.
Apple needs low AROR-acceptable rate of return-meaning they will put only so much time in to parts and manufacturing, and figure they still make more many even it 5% of their machines come back for repair, than if they took the time to build a 1% return rate.
Yeah, Dell and HP hae similare of higher rturns, but this a Mac-the Acura of computers, not a Hundai-wher you can expect constatn problems

No more OS beta releases, that are for me embarrassing to explain away.
I remember the whole historic glory when Panther was first released-only to all flat on their face, to find a very large segment of people having common USB problems.

Snowy_River
Aug 22, 2007, 02:10 PM
There are those of us who do want decent graphics cards for something other than gaming. 3D work in CAD can make good use of a decent graphics card. I do agree that I'd like to see a consumer (i.e. less expensive) desktop that is a bit more configurable.

sososowhat
Aug 22, 2007, 02:17 PM
Because 99% of people outside of enthusiast community/forums for both Macs and PCs could care less about video cards. I'd be willing to wager most couldn't even tell you what one is. They only care about if they can see the email/webpages on their screen. That's it. Same reason why 99% of people listen to music on ******* speakers, because they don't care.
The analogy with speakers isn't a good one. People may not care about the quality of their speakers, but the sound going into the room is certainly worse with "*******" than quality speakers.

On the other hand, so far as I know there is absolutely no difference -- NONE -- between looking at a static webpage with GMA950 graphics or some hotshot graphics card. 90+% of people, at least those who don't play graphically intensive games on their Mac, will never even have the opportunity to notice a difference between a "decent" graphics card and what Apple provides: their experience would be exactly the same on either.

overcast
Aug 22, 2007, 02:22 PM
The analogy with speakers isn't a good one. People may not care about the quality of their speakers, but the sound going into the room is certainly worse with "*******" than quality speakers.

On the other hand, so far as I know there is absolutely no difference -- NONE -- between looking at a static webpage with GMA950 graphics or some hotshot graphics card. 90+% of people, at least those who don't play graphically intensive games on their Mac, will never even have the opportunity to notice a difference between a "decent" graphics card and what Apple provides: their experience would be exactly the same on either.
The point of the analogy is that most people just do not care about anything as long as they see/hear it. That's enough. Those in the minority that do will complain like always. I've been complaining for years that hd audio formats will never take off because the general public listens to music on BOSE alarm clock radio / cd players. Then there is the 75% of HDTV owners that believe they are watching HD content when in reality it's still SDTV.

ifjake
Aug 22, 2007, 02:58 PM
recently i've seen more comparisons of manufacturer's market share rather than the usual Mac vs. PC (PC meaning Windows) comparison. it seems to make more and more sense to look at this way, since more and more manufacturers are beginning to offer more than one OS option for their systems. even Apple does this, albeit indirectly, through BootCamp and practically endorsing various virtualization software. quite a curious turn of events.

50548
Aug 22, 2007, 03:06 PM
The analogy with speakers isn't a good one. People may not care about the quality of their speakers, but the sound going into the room is certainly worse with "*******" than quality speakers.

On the other hand, so far as I know there is absolutely no difference -- NONE -- between looking at a static webpage with GMA950 graphics or some hotshot graphics card. 90+% of people, at least those who don't play graphically intensive games on their Mac, will never even have the opportunity to notice a difference between a "decent" graphics card and what Apple provides: their experience would be exactly the same on either.

I couldn't have said it better...99% of the world DO NOT care about what GPU they have.

And even BareFeats shows that the Radeon bests the 7600 in 2 out of 6 games, and shows a worse performance of 5 INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FPS when compared to the 7600, not to mention the fact that Radeon's drivers are much newer.

In other words, the world doesn't care about GPUs. And even I, one of the rabid posters on MR, don't have the damn time nor willingness to play more than 3 commercial "old" games on my iMac: Call of Duty, NWN and Hearts of Iron Doomsday.

oxymoron2007
Aug 22, 2007, 03:10 PM
So, this is just anecdotal evidence, but I thought it was pretty funny. I was at the mall and was able to compare the traffic at the Apple store to a Dell kiosk. The pictures are at my blog (http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/blog/2007/08/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-other.html).

It's the same thing at any mall where there is an Apple Store...I remember when everyone used to crowd around the Dell kiosk (now most of them are closed). GO APPLE!

ChrisA
Aug 22, 2007, 03:11 PM
Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc? .
We have about 5,500 PCs here. Each is replaced every few years, so we buy more than 1,000 PCs per year. Many are high end. The one one my desk is an HP with specs to match a Mac Pro. Not one of those 5,500 PCs has a game installed on it.

Also when they say the PC game industry is 1/5th the size of the console market I think most of that 1/5th is going to the people who sell the games not to hardware companies. So even if Apple could capture 100% of the gammer market it still would not be all that much

chr1s60
Aug 22, 2007, 03:25 PM
I love to see Apple growing. It will still take many years, but now people can visually see the demand for Apple is going up. I look for Apple to eventually be the leader in laptops and for them to have a much larger share of desktops.

netdog
Aug 22, 2007, 03:26 PM
I love to see Apple growing. It will still take many years, but now people can visually see the demand for Apple is going up. I look for Apple to eventually be the leader in laptops and for them to have a much larger share of desktops.

Nothing takes many years anymore.

offwidafairies
Aug 22, 2007, 03:30 PM
Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc? I don't.

I think its really scary the number of people wasting their life on games. I think its even scarier that those people who spend 3 or more hours a day on games can actually afford to buy these high end computers. There are starving people in the world. In fact 80% of the world's population is living in poverty. We need to use our computing skills for good instead of evil, or for production instead of idle. But hey, that's just my 2cents.

deejemon
Aug 22, 2007, 03:34 PM
*

WannaGoMac
Aug 22, 2007, 03:42 PM
Because 99% of people outside of enthusiast community/forums for both Macs and PCs could care less about video cards. I'd be willing to wager most couldn't even tell you what one is. They only care about if they can see the email/webpages on their screen. That's it. Same reason why 99% of people listen to music on terrible speakers, because they don't care.

It's not that they don't care, it's that no one ever showed them what "good" sound is. I am sure someone at some point introduced you to better sounding audio equipment, and until then you had no idea what you were missing...

I think its really scary the number of people wasting their life on games. I think its even scarier that those people who spend 3 or more hours a day on games can actually afford to buy these high end computers. There are starving people in the world. In fact 80% of the world's population is living in poverty. We need to use our computing skills for good instead of evil, or for production instead of idle. But hey, that's just my 2cents.

I assume you don't watch TV, read books, go to the theater, or watch movies? Who are you to judge how people spend their lives. If this is what makes a person happy, who is anyone to judge....

filmgirl
Aug 22, 2007, 03:51 PM
I couldn't have said it better...99% of the world DO NOT care about what GPU they have.

And even BareFeats shows that the Radeon bests the 7600 in 2 out of 6 games, and shows a worse performance of 5 INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FPS when compared to the 7600, not to mention the fact that Radeon's drivers are much newer.

In other words, the world doesn't care about GPUs. And even I, one of the rabid posters on MR, don't have the damn time nor willingness to play more than 3 commercial "old" games on my iMac: Call of Duty, NWN and Hearts of Iron Doomsday.

Absolutely! I tried to get hardcore geek about video cards and PC gaming several years back, but I just don't have the time, energy or interest. I love video games - but that's what I use consoles for (and ever since the X-Box the whole "console/PC gamer debate" has completely changed. Halo changed it) -- and really, I don't have time to play games that often anyway. Do I hate the GMA 950 in my MacBook, yes, yes I do - more in principle than in practice (it's ridiculous - every other notebook in the same class/pricepoint by Sony, Dell, Tohshiba, etc. has at least an X3100) - and I'l be honest, now that I know I can enable 224 while running XP in Boot Camp - I feel confident that the limit will either be raised in Leopard or that someone smarter than me will figure out a way to enable it anyway.

Plus, if you want to be real about it - the consumer who spend SERIOUS money on graphics cards -- and I'm not talking about a $300 or $4000 ATI or nVidia PCI-E card, I'm talking about $1000+ HDV cards from companies like Grass Valley (which now owns Canopous) and Matrox and AVID's hardware products -- most of those users who aren't on a turnkey are using a Mac Pro anyway.

But more on the actual topic - this is really great news for Apple, and I am not at all surprised. Macs are hardly uncommon at my university - but I've seen more of them on campus this year than any year in the past (and because I'm taking my sweet ass time, I've been around a while) - and I've talked to at least half a dozen people about my experience (they approached me and asked how I liked it - and I effused on how great the "switch" has been). I've already decided that my mom's next laptop will be a MacBook - she has no choice (I mean, she does - but she won't care, my mom is so computer illiterate - neither one of my parents can even burn CDs...it's ridiculous) -- and I really wish I could have talked my dad into going Mac instead of being conned (by the salesman) into spending over $2000 on a 17" Toshiba laptop that is both more computer than he needs and too difficult for him to operate. He wouldn't have listened - even if I installed Windows on it -- but I would have to Remote Desktop into his system far less often.

I don't know if Apple will reach 20% of all laptops sold in the next two years, their product line-up is just too small and updates are too infrequent (you have what, six base configurations? - three for each series? That's just not enough), but it seems like the impact of the Intel move/the wider knowledge that you can run Windows on a Mac now has really started to impact sales.

But with all these kudos -- it should be noted that just like the iPod, much of the success of the portable sales is directly attributable to one person, and his name is not Steve Jobs. It's Bill Gates. And I don't mean that in a sardonic, backhanded way - I mean that seriously. iPod only succeeded in such an unprecedented way because they made it Windows compatible - plain and simple. In the same token - whether they end up using BootCamp, Parallels or not - I would venture that a large percentage of new Mac buyers are buying a Mac in large part because they know they can. That takes away the one real sticking point that was holding back the line before - and unlike high price, which Sony can match or exceed (and like Apple, much of the price increase is because of the brand more than the actual value of the product - at least in hardware terms), software compatibility is the big thing that will keep the majority of computer users away from using any OS that is different from Windows.

seashellz
Aug 22, 2007, 04:22 PM
MTV unveiled its new "Urge," online digital music destination at the big Consumer Electronics Show last year, it had all the earmarks of a major initiative. Justin Timberlake joined Van Toffler on stage during Bill Gates' keynote to unveil the service which would ultimately be tied to the then-upcoming Zune media player from Microsoft

But flash forward to present-day, where Urge has done nothing to unseat Apple's iTunes, and the Zune, is, well, missing in action. So Viacom forges a deal with RealNetworks and its Rhapsody online digital subscription service instead, abandoing Microsoft, yet continuing what seems to be developing as a major digital initiative by the company.

And that's the much bigger story here.

First, some details on MTV and Rhapsody. S&P's Tuna Amobi says Viacom was "left with very little choice" as two "somewhat fringe players try to leverage their positions" to take on Apple. The music landscape continues to change, and with change comes opportunity, so who knows: Consumers might be looking for an alternative and a relationship like Real and Viacom brings a lot of cool entertainment bells and whistles to the party. And heaven only knows that Hollywood is certainly looking for online alternatives to the iPod/iTunes juggernaut.

Real's Rob Glaser doesn't care about juggernauts or formats or any of that. He just wants everyone using his media player and his software across any format and any device.

"Google's famous for search," Glaser tells me. "Microsoft is famous for its dysfunctional operating system. Apple obviously with great consumer devices, does a great job. But video and audio is the center of our company. It's what we started with 12 years ago when we first brought out RealAudio. So we see tons of opportunity to come out with great products and if we keep doing that, we'll get our share of the benefits."

So the deal makes perfect sense for Real and could be a nice arrangement. Yet, for Viacom, the stakes are much bigger, and a deal like this one far more important.

"It was rather of surprising for us that Urge didn't gain the kind of traction that we thought it would gain, given MTV's huge and very attractive demographic," says Amobi. But when Microsoft went in another direction with online entertainment, and reduced emphasis and resources on Zune, "this was really kind of a forced situation on (Viacom.)"

Today's news signals yet another major step into online entertainment for Viacom. The company got off to a bumpy start when it lost mspace.com to Fox, which ultimately led to then Viacom CEO Tom Freston losing his job. "Viacom seems like it's been somewhat dragging its feet in its overall digital strategy," says Amobi.

But now, Viacom can't seem to move fast enough, announcing just this week plans to spend $500 million over the next year snapping up even more video games makers, after spending about that much over the last year, with a huge emphasis on online and web-based entertainment. MTV has built upon the success launched by xFire, GameTrailers, NeoPets, Nicktropolis. There was last year's $200 million purchase of Atom Entertainment. The deal with Harmonix, which now puts the hugely successful "Guitar Hero" gaming franchise under the Viacom umbrella.

ComScore Media Metrix says 42 million unique visitors spent time on MTV's game site in June, a 20% jump from January. MTVN has also signed casual gaming deals with Verizon and Nokia. The timing of today's Real deal is also important since it comes just a few weeks before MTV's big Video Music Awards where you'll see this relationship get plenty of play during the broadcast.

It's a sweet deal for both companies, yet won't do all that much in the near-term to unseat Apple's dominance. But this online digital entertainment marathon is still only in its first mile. And the race is a lot bigger than a competition against just Apple Inc.

not to b Apple-centric, but all these new services are DOA-like the ZUNE

2007 CNBC, Inc. All Rights Reserved

WannaGoMac
Aug 22, 2007, 04:26 PM
Absolutely! I tried to get hardcore geek about video cards and PC gaming several years back, but I just don't have the time, energy or interest. I love video games - but that's what I use consoles for (and ever since the X-Box the whole "console/PC gamer debate" has completely changed. Halo changed it) -- and really, I don't have time to play games that often anyway. Do I hate the GMA 950 in my MacBook, yes, yes I do - more in principle than in practice (it's ridiculous - every other notebook in the same class/pricepoint by Sony, Dell, Tohshiba, etc. has at least an X3100) - and I'l be honest, now that I know I can enable 224 while running XP in Boot Camp - I feel confident that the limit will either be raised in Leopard or that someone smarter than me will figure out a way to enable it anyway.

Plus, if you want to be real about it - the consumer who spend SERIOUS money on graphics cards -- and I'm not talking about a $300 or $4000 ATI or nVidia PCI-E card, I'm talking about $1000+ HDV cards from companies like Grass Valley (which now owns Canopous) and Matrox and AVID's hardware products -- most of those users who aren't on a turnkey are using a Mac Pro anyway.

But more on the actual topic - this is really great news for Apple, and I am not at all surprised. Macs are hardly uncommon at my university - but I've seen more of them on campus this year than any year in the past (and because I'm taking my sweet ass time, I've been around a while) - and I've talked to at least half a dozen people about my experience (they approached me and asked how I liked it - and I effused on how great the "switch" has been). I've already decided that my mom's next laptop will be a MacBook - she has no choice (I mean, she does - but she won't care, my mom is so computer illiterate - neither one of my parents can even burn CDs...it's ridiculous) -- and I really wish I could have talked my dad into going Mac instead of being conned (by the salesman) into spending over $2000 on a 17" Toshiba laptop that is both more computer than he needs and too difficult for him to operate. He wouldn't have listened - even if I installed Windows on it -- but I would have to Remote Desktop into his system far less often.

I don't know if Apple will reach 20% of all laptops sold in the next two years, their product line-up is just too small and updates are too infrequent (you have what, six base configurations? - three for each series? That's just not enough), but it seems like the impact of the Intel move/the wider knowledge that you can run Windows on a Mac now has really started to impact sales.

But with all these kudos -- it should be noted that just like the iPod, much of the success of the portable sales is directly attributable to one person, and his name is not Steve Jobs. It's Bill Gates. And I don't mean that in a sardonic, backhanded way - I mean that seriously. iPod only succeeded in such an unprecedented way because they made it Windows compatible - plain and simple. In the same token - whether they end up using BootCamp, Parallels or not - I would venture that a large percentage of new Mac buyers are buying a Mac in large part because they know they can. That takes away the one real sticking point that was holding back the line before - and unlike high price, which Sony can match or exceed (and like Apple, much of the price increase is because of the brand more than the actual value of the product - at least in hardware terms), software compatibility is the big thing that will keep the majority of computer users away from using any OS that is different from Windows.

MTV unveiled its new "Urge," online digital music destination at the big Consumer Electronics Show last year, it had all the earmarks of a major initiative. Justin Timberlake joined Van Toffler on stage during Bill Gates' keynote to unveil the service which would ultimately be tied to the then-upcoming Zune media player from Microsoft

But flash forward to present-day, where Urge has done nothing to unseat Apple's iTunes, and the Zune, is, well, missing in action. So Viacom forges a deal with RealNetworks and its Rhapsody online digital subscription service instead, abandoing Microsoft, yet continuing what seems to be developing as a major digital initiative by the company.

And that's the much bigger story here.

First, some details on MTV and Rhapsody. S&P's Tuna Amobi says Viacom was "left with very little choice" as two "somewhat fringe players try to leverage their positions" to take on Apple. The music landscape continues to change, and with change comes opportunity, so who knows: Consumers might be looking for an alternative and a relationship like Real and Viacom brings a lot of cool entertainment bells and whistles to the party. And heaven only knows that Hollywood is certainly looking for online alternatives to the iPod/iTunes juggernaut.

Real's Rob Glaser doesn't care about juggernauts or formats or any of that. He just wants everyone using his media player and his software across any format and any device.

"Google's famous for search," Glaser tells me. "Microsoft is famous for its dysfunctional operating system. Apple obviously with great consumer devices, does a great job. But video and audio is the center of our company. It's what we started with 12 years ago when we first brought out RealAudio. So we see tons of opportunity to come out with great products and if we keep doing that, we'll get our share of the benefits."

So the deal makes perfect sense for Real and could be a nice arrangement. Yet, for Viacom, the stakes are much bigger, and a deal like this one far more important.

"It was rather of surprising for us that Urge didn't gain the kind of traction that we thought it would gain, given MTV's huge and very attractive demographic," says Amobi. But when Microsoft went in another direction with online entertainment, and reduced emphasis and resources on Zune, "this was really kind of a forced situation on (Viacom.)"

Today's news signals yet another major step into online entertainment for Viacom. The company got off to a bumpy start when it lost mspace.com to Fox, which ultimately led to then Viacom CEO Tom Freston losing his job. "Viacom seems like it's been somewhat dragging its feet in its overall digital strategy," says Amobi.

But now, Viacom can't seem to move fast enough, announcing just this week plans to spend $500 million over the next year snapping up even more video games makers, after spending about that much over the last year, with a huge emphasis on online and web-based entertainment. MTV has built upon the success launched by xFire, GameTrailers, NeoPets, Nicktropolis. There was last year's $200 million purchase of Atom Entertainment. The deal with Harmonix, which now puts the hugely successful "Guitar Hero" gaming franchise under the Viacom umbrella.

ComScore Media Metrix says 42 million unique visitors spent time on MTV's game site in June, a 20% jump from January. MTVN has also signed casual gaming deals with Verizon and Nokia. The timing of today's Real deal is also important since it comes just a few weeks before MTV's big Video Music Awards where you'll see this relationship get plenty of play during the broadcast.

It's a sweet deal for both companies, yet won't do all that much in the near-term to unseat Apple's dominance. But this online digital entertainment marathon is still only in its first mile. And the race is a lot bigger than a competition against just Apple Inc.

not to b Apple-centric, but all these new services are DOA-like the ZUNE

© 2007 CNBC, Inc. All Rights Reserved

My god. You guys have a lot of time on your hands to type so much!! :)
I really just replied to create a mega-super-long post by combining both of your crazy long messages. Phew, talk about typing-diarrhea :D

FYI, Brevity is the soul of wit :p

SiliconAddict
Aug 22, 2007, 04:36 PM
The title should read Apple Gains marketshare while loosing quality. I'm dead serious. compared to the days of the Pismo the MacBook and MacBook Pro are not quality driven products. In days of yore Apple was about think different. Today its about think profit.
The one thing I will warn people before getting a Mac is if they need fast turn around time do not get an Apple. Dell and a few other manufacturers will ship the part out overnight and actually send a tech to your door (Or workplace, where ever you schedule the appt.) Apple? Apple store if you are lucky. And even then you are Qued up in line. If you are unlucky they will send it into depot where you will be lucky to get it back in a week.
I'm dead serious when I say if Apple really thought their wares were head and shoulders above the competition they should back it with a much stronger warranty. As it stands....http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/badrazz.gif

The only time I've been impressed with Apple is when they outright replace my MBP after the 4th time I had it in for repairs. All told I've had 1st and 2nd MBP and C2D MBP in for repairs 6 times. Twice on this new one and four times on the old.

FoxyKaye
Aug 22, 2007, 04:53 PM
Apple really does need to rethink its service and support - I had a Dell PII once, and when I needed a CDR drive changed out, Dell sent someone within 2 business days of my call ("No m'am, you don't need to do it yourself, it's part of your warranty and just as easy for us to send someone out."). Compare that to Apple, who, if my experience at the Emeryville, CA "Dummy Bar" is to count, first told me to re-install OS X to fix an obvious hardware problem (I do a lot of CD/DVD burning), really needs to get in the game.

While I was waiting at the Dummy Bar for an appointment that was an hour and 15 minutes late ("Well m'am, you should expect us to be running late." - I'm not kidding) and spending money on parking, the Dummy Bar staffer literally made another woman cry. And for what? So Apple can save a few dollars on replacement parts?

After my experience in the Emeryville store, I've done the mail-in parts replacement, which thank the gods my iMac is the one "user-service" model, because the Emeryville store also wanted to keep my iMac for 11-14 days to swap out a defective DVD drive. I asked the manager, "Are you aware that this is how I make money? Film/sound editing, DJ work and consulting are all on this iMac, and you want to keep it for almost two weeks?" He replied, "Well, that's how the program works."

It sounds like Apple's program isn't getting much better.

twoodcc
Aug 22, 2007, 04:53 PM
great news! now hopefully more and more businesses will start switching

WannaGoMac
Aug 22, 2007, 05:01 PM
I asked the manager, "Are you aware that this is how I make money? Film/sound editing, DJ work and consulting are all on this iMac, and you want to keep it for almost two weeks?" He replied, "Well, that's how the program works."


Sounds like you need to have extra computers on hand if your business really depends on it. If a computer is your livelihood, you're crazy to have just one. You should have a minimum of two ready to go at all times.

Scarlet Fever
Aug 22, 2007, 05:06 PM
screw the gaming market. Their needs are so specific that there is no way Apple would be able to cater for them. They're a dying breed anyway; the XBOX 360 is better than most of their gaming computers, and it costs a fraction of the price.

I reckon the fear of viruses isn't an issue for the average Mac user, but part of the reason they are so prevalent on PCs is because stupid people click on everything that moves. If those same stupid people come to the Apple platform, they're going to have a whinge because they deleted their home folder and now their computer doesn't work anymore.

Ahem. Vista.

that only took a couple of months to fail miserably ;)

sbarton
Aug 22, 2007, 05:08 PM
I couldn't have said it better...99% of the world DO NOT care about what GPU they have.

And even BareFeats shows that the Radeon bests the 7600 in 2 out of 6 games, and shows a worse performance of 5 INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FPS when compared to the 7600, not to mention the fact that Radeon's drivers are much newer.

In other words, the world doesn't care about GPUs. And even I, one of the rabid posters on MR, don't have the damn time nor willingness to play more than 3 commercial "old" games on my iMac: Call of Duty, NWN and Hearts of Iron Doomsday.

Funny how you tried to twist that benchmark and review to look good. First of all....the 7600 your refering to was a BTO option on a handful of 24" imacs. Second...I challenge anyone to read that review with the benchmarks and come away with a good feeling about the iMacs gaming abilities.

I know you maintain that running games at 1024x768 stretched across the 1920x1600 pixel screen of the 24" iMac is "acceptable". But it really isn't. Playing any of those games at a native resolution is going to result in a very poor experiance.

There are plenty of people who will be well served by the current iMac's. And there are plenty of people who want more in the 3D graphics department. I'm an Apple entusiast and supporter and have been since around 95 when I started using Macs exclusivley. Your deluding yourself if you think the only ones complaining are those "fringe gamers" that have nothing better to do than to come over the Macrumors and post a negative comment...:rolleyes:

Your not doing the Mac community any favors by trying to "convince" everyone that "your" needs are good enough for everyone else. Why don't you praise the iMac for what it is and quit trying to piss on those people's opinions that it falls short in certain areas.

Is not...Is so...Is not...Is so....Is not....Is so...Is not...Is so

mozmac
Aug 22, 2007, 05:27 PM
I definitely know more people that are switching to a Mac than are switching back.

! V !
Aug 22, 2007, 05:29 PM
The title should read Apple Gains marketshare while loosing quality. I'm dead serious. compared to the days of the Pismo the MacBook and MacBook Pro are not quality driven products. In days of yore Apple was about think different. Today its about think profit.
The one thing I will warn people before getting a Mac is if they need fast turn around time do not get an Apple. Dell and a few other manufacturers will ship the part out overnight and actually send a tech to your door (Or workplace, where ever you schedule the appt.) Apple? Apple store if you are lucky. And even then you are Qued up in line. If you are unlucky they will send it into depot where you will be lucky to get it back in a week.
I'm dead serious when I say if Apple really thought their wares were head and shoulders above the competition they should back it with a much stronger warranty. As it stands....http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/badrazz.gif

The only time I've been impressed with Apple is when they outright replace my MBP after the 4th time I had it in for repairs. All told I've had 1st and 2nd MBP and C2D MBP in for repairs 6 times. Twice on this new one and four times on the old.

Couldn't agree more, Apple has questionable QA issues since the past few years. From experience my pismo gave me no problems, my iBook G4 gave me no problems however my iMac G5 has had the same issues occur on more than one occasion. And the most recent incident is my 4GB Nano 1G, when the input buttons decided not to work for some strange reason.

After speaking to the customer rep, and they could not do a thing due to being tied to Apple's policy I have since decided that I will use my SD card in my car and free mp3 player for the sports activities that I require it for. Buy buy iPod.

With the new iMac's I am not impressed at all, this leaves me to stick with my G5 for a couple more years.

! V !
Aug 22, 2007, 05:35 PM
Sounds like you need to have extra computers on hand if your business really depends on it. If a computer is your livelihood, you're crazy to have just one. You should have a minimum of two ready to go at all times.

Instead of placing fault on the consumer, maybe the company can improve in this area or shortcoming by giving a temp computer to any person who bring in they system for repairs similar to how a car company does when you send your car in for repairs.

As for your data, an external HDD with a carbon copy of your system settings and personal settings should patch over well when you acquire a free temp computer.

WannaGoMac
Aug 22, 2007, 05:41 PM
Instead of placing fault on the consumer, maybe the company can improve in this area or shortcoming by giving a temp computer to any person who bring in they system for repairs similar to how a car company does when you send your car in for repairs.

As for your data, an external HDD with a carbon copy of your system settings and personal settings should patch over well when you acquire a free temp computer.

It's not placing fault, just identifying a bad business practice. It is stupid to only have 1 computer when they cost nothing compared to a yearly total income that depends on the devices. If apple had a next day repair service then maybe fine (even then, I would still have multiple computers), but they don't so why would you limit yourself?

bananas
Aug 22, 2007, 05:48 PM
We have about 5,500 PCs here. Each is replaced every few years, so we buy more than 1,000 PCs per year. Many are high end. The one one my desk is an HP with specs to match a Mac Pro. Not one of those 5,500 PCs has a game installed on it.

Also when they say the PC game industry is 1/5th the size of the console market I think most of that 1/5th is going to the people who sell the games not to hardware companies. So even if Apple could capture 100% of the gammer market it still would not be all that much

If Apple had machines with powerful graphics (say mac mini-ish machine with a gf8800m) Apple would sell more computers. It's that simple BOOM, millions of more. :D

I'm saying that it would be good business to make a second edition of Mac Mini with $300 graphics card and sell it for $400 more than the current model. I would buy it! BOOM it's that simple. (i'm not suggesting to stop selling the current Mac Mini though)

! V !
Aug 22, 2007, 05:49 PM
It's not placing fault, just identifying a bad business practice. It is stupid to only have 1 computer when they cost nothing compared to a yearly total income that depends on the devices. If apple had a next day repair service then maybe fine (even then, I would still have multiple computers), but they don't so why would you limit yourself?

Depends if you are a student on a limited budget could be a possible factor. Even if you ran your business that depended on your computer, for freelancers it makes it a difficult choice to buy another only to have it for emergency purposes and the hardware being obsolete in a matter of months. Simple economics.

Apple needs a rental type of temp computer for repairs.

jlbrown23
Aug 22, 2007, 05:57 PM
It might be smaller, but it's not tiny when compared to consoles. And there are few things to remember here:

a) Gamers spend a lot of money on their hardware. What better group of consumers to go after?


Although this may all be true, high margins in low volume markets mean not much money for $20 billion companies. Apple is doing a great job of focusing on what they do well, and gaming was never really big on Macs. And the truth is everything but high end, graphics intensive games work just fine, so it is a small niche inside the small niche of gaming itself. Better for Apple to focus on machines that are simple, look great and work well. With the market share gains they are getting it's hard to argue with what they are doing. I thing the biggest thing holding Apple back is their pricing - $1199 is a lot for a low end desktop. Might have been smart to keep a 17" model for $700-800.

sbarton
Aug 22, 2007, 06:34 PM
gaming was never really big on Macs. And the truth is everything but high end, graphics intensive games work just fine, so it is a small niche inside the small niche of gaming itself. B.

No...Once upon a time ...a long long time ago...the Mac had some of the very BEST games on the planet. I remember when most games for the Mac had 256 colors where most of the PC ports of the same game were only 16 and lower resolution.

It wasn't until Apple started loosing market share that the slide began. We just pretend that we don't want that part of the market now to hide the pain of what once was....sniff...sniff..

Also , respectfully, have to disagree with the "everything but the high end works fine" comment. Maybe for clarification you can list the high-end games your referring to so we can debate specifics.

jlbrown23
Aug 22, 2007, 07:23 PM
No...Once upon a time ...a long long time ago...the Mac had some of the very BEST games on the planet. I remember when most games for the Mac had 256 colors where most of the PC ports of the same game were only 16 and lower resolution.

It wasn't until Apple started loosing market share that the slide began. We just pretend that we don't want that part of the market now to hide the pain of what once was....sniff...sniff..

Also , respectfully, have to disagree with the "everything but the high end works fine" comment. Maybe for clarification you can list the high-end games your referring to so we can debate specifics.

I remember having to buy the 486 PC on a card for my Centris 610 in order to be able to play Wizardry VII. This was ~1992, and at that time you could at best get half the PC games on Mac. And things only went downhill after that. The games they had may have been better than the PC ports, but the PC had many more games(including most of the better ones).

As far as "everything but the high end" - there are hardly any games for the Mac that fit that description these days. Civ IV runs just fine for me(despite a bogus warning that my hardware is inadequate), but I imagine Command & Conquer 3 will be a train wreck on my Mac Book (but maybe not my Hackintosh). Truth is it has been years since I have spent much time gaming, and I have never been a big fan of fast action/intense graphics games. Most people use their computers for Web/email, music, maybe some video, and the Macbook can do all of that without breaking a sweat.

sbarton
Aug 22, 2007, 07:59 PM
I remember having to buy the 486 PC on a card for my Centris 610 in order to be able to play Wizardry VII. This was ~1992, and at that time you could at best get half the PC games on Mac. And things only went downhill after that. The games they had may have been better than the PC ports, but the PC had many more games(including most of the better ones).


Yeah...87 - 92 were the heyday for Mac graphics...The Mac II era...Most Macs did 640 x 480 8bit color and stereo sound while the PC's were stuck with 640x350 and only 64 colors and hardly any sound...

Of course we all know what happened after that. Astronomical prices (comparatively)...the dogged focus on niche markets (Graphics, Education & Media) while ignoring large swaths of business and industry...

You can't really complain about Apples overall performance these days. They are taking the safe road and can't say I really blame them.

Chris F
Aug 22, 2007, 10:08 PM
I don't know what you are getting at, but GPU manufacturers do not have anywhere close to the resources that CPU manufacturers do. It's the reason behind many of the design and manufacturing choices.

You realize ATI and AMD have been the same company (AMD) for over a year now right? ;)

NicP
Aug 22, 2007, 10:13 PM
Sounds like you need to have extra computers on hand if your business really depends on it. If a computer is your livelihood, you're crazy to have just one. You should have a minimum of two ready to go at all times.

Do you think i should buy multiple cars just in case one fails?

zap2
Aug 22, 2007, 10:17 PM
Do you think i should buy multiple cars just in case one fails?

Big price difference....plus people upgrade there computer more then they do there cars(on average)

ImAlwaysRight
Aug 22, 2007, 10:26 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The latest numbers are looking good for Apple, especially in the Laptop market. ... The survey also indicates that 28% of potential buyers over the next 90 days will be choosing an Apple Laptop,

This is good news, considering I put my MacBook up on ebay. :)

:eek: WOW! It has only been 3 days and I already have 1600 views on my auction. I've never had an ebay auction (including about a dozen different Macs) have that many views. And I still have a couple days to go!

! V !
Aug 22, 2007, 11:02 PM
Big price difference....plus people upgrade there computer more then they do there cars(on average)

Considering the user who had the problematic situation with a MBP, you expect this person to buy another pricey piece of equipment. Even considering it was a MB, you still expect someone to spend well over $1000 USD combined for 2 MB with no where near the specs of a MBP and still be in business.

From a freelance or student perspective it makes no sense to have two of the same piece of equipment, even from a business sense it's too costly to even contemplate.

If you are referring that this person had a PowerBook in 2005 and bought a MBP in 2007 which either one had a problem, it would still leave this individuals productivity to a downgrade.

I upgrade my computer and car every 4-5 years. The people who upgrade more frequently than that do not depend on their bread and butter through their notebooks.

BKKbill
Aug 23, 2007, 01:06 AM
As apple's % in the market goes up developers will start producing more software + more playable games. It seems to me every time there is something about computers which is getting less and less what with all the other i gadgets coming on line it ends up being about graphics. As said many many times before these are not toys for gaming if thats is what you want just get a gaming PC. It isn't going to change because you want it to. I think not now not ever :p

GFLPraxis
Aug 23, 2007, 02:22 AM
I think its really scary the number of people wasting their life on games. I think its even scarier that those people who spend 3 or more hours a day on games can actually afford to buy these high end computers. There are starving people in the world. In fact 80% of the world's population is living in poverty. We need to use our computing skills for good instead of evil, or for production instead of idle. But hey, that's just my 2cents.

I hope that you're not implying that games are a waste; they can actually be quite social (I probably spend more time in multiplayer with friends over than individually).

But I agree if you're talking about stuff like World of Warcraft and other MMORPG's. Those aren't games; they're WORK! They require a huge time investment to get anywhere, and constantly make you feel like you have to invest more time to keep up with everyone else. Ugh. I've seen people's free time utterly consumed by MMO's, and some people even losing jobs over it.



But as far as general video games (not MMO's that consume so much time) go, I think I am where I am today because of them. I started tinkering with game files and learned about directory structures, editing files, how software worked, etc when I was 11, and now I'm 19 and working an IT job before my degree is done, and all the knowledge I have is because games got me interested in how my computer works.

On top of that, I'm also a journalist because I was so knowledgeable about games that I got together with some other guys to start a website to report about them, and it got big enough that Nintendo regards me as press and various companies send me free games to review and I get invited to all the press events and have met the President of Nintendo of America (Reggie Fils-Aime).


So gaming CAN get you somewhere :D

GFLPraxis
Aug 23, 2007, 02:23 AM
View Post
Nothing takes many years anymore.Ahem. Vista.

Like he said, nothing :D

offwidafairies
Aug 23, 2007, 06:00 AM
I hope that you're not implying that games are a waste;.....

So gaming CAN get you somewhere :D

well i guess ur using ur gaming skills for good instead of idle then
there is always an exception...

overcast
Aug 23, 2007, 07:35 AM
I think its really scary the number of people wasting their life on games. I think its even scarier that those people who spend 3 or more hours a day on games can actually afford to buy these high end computers. There are starving people in the world. In fact 80% of the world's population is living in poverty. We need to use our computing skills for good instead of evil, or for production instead of idle. But hey, that's just my 2cents.

I really hope this is a joke. I know your time spent lecturing us online, must be during downtown from when you're saving the world.

overcast
Aug 23, 2007, 07:45 AM
You realize ATI and AMD have been the same company (AMD) for over a year now right? ;)
Don't nitpick, you know what I mean. A year is a drop in the bucket anyhow. It's not like AMD's resources are anything near Intel's. AMD will be recovering from that purchase for a while, especially with the dismal 2900 series they released.

motulist
Aug 23, 2007, 07:46 AM
Remember, there's a tipping point. When a high enough percentage of people start using a product, there's a tipping point where growth of that product will suddenly explode.

When only a few people use product X, then you won't know many people who use it, so it won't really be on your radar and it's easy for you to have an incorrect impression of it. And there is much less support for that product from 3rd party manufacturers. And humans have a herd mentality, things that you see a lot of other people using are subconsciously believed to be better, or at least safer.

So there's a tipping point - once enough people use product X, then all of a sudden all the barriers to buying product X suddenly start to fall at once. And once those barriers fall and more people start to buy product X, then the barriers quickly are eliminated further and further at a faster and faster rate.

Some people say the tipping point for non-MS OSes is 8% marketshare, some say 15% or higher, but all the analysts say that there is a tipping point (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22tipping+point%22+Apple+OR+Mac+marketshare+OR+%22market+share%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) somewhere out there.

overcast
Aug 23, 2007, 07:47 AM
As apple's % in the market goes up developers will start producing more software + more playable games. It seems to me every time there is something about computers which is getting less and less what with all the other i gadgets coming on line it ends up being about graphics. As said many many times before these are not toys for gaming if thats is what you want just get a gaming PC. It isn't going to change because you want it to. I think not now not ever :p
So wait, all of those PC vs Mac commercials telling me that PCs are for boring work related tasks and Macs are for fun life tasks? So which is it? PC's are for fun and gaming and Macs are for work now?

overcast
Aug 23, 2007, 07:49 AM
Do you think i should buy multiple cars just in case one fails?
No, but our dealers immediately lend us a car while they are working on it. See the subtle difference there?

Evangelion
Aug 23, 2007, 08:12 AM
Although this may all be true, high margins in low volume markets mean not much money for $20 billion companies.

Compared to other computer-manufacturers, Apple IS operating in hi-margin, low-volume segment of the market as it is! And besides, the gamer-market is not THAT "low volume". In amount of sales, it's propably a lot bigger than sales of Macs combined.

And the truth is everything but high end, graphics intensive games work just fine

Um, that is what gaming usually is about.

Better for Apple to focus on machines that are simple, look great and work well.

Would offering a gaming-suitable Mac (the fabled xMac) mean eliminating those qualitives? That is, Apple could offer a gaming-machine or "simple machines that look great and work well", but not both? I maintain that the current positive values of Mac (design, quality etc.) would not have to be sacrificed in the xMac.

With the market share gains they are getting it's hard to argue with what they are doing.

Well, fact remains that Apple is still a small fish in the barrel. Some would say that they only have one way to go from here: up.

WannaGoMac
Aug 23, 2007, 08:51 AM
Do you think i should buy multiple cars just in case one fails?

No I don't. You are comparing a $20,000+ purchase to a $1,500+ purchase in terms of service demanded? LOL. Cmon, at least pick something comparable if you are going to try and defend being cheap with ones business. You're luck apple gives such a nice warranty at all.

Don't be cheap. Buy a 2nd Windows computer if you need to save money, but don't let your business fail cause your cheap $1500 computer is in for repairs.

On a separate note, loaning a car is much easier than a computer. uh, who is going to move all the files from your broken computer to the loaner and then back to the repaired computer when done? Kinda expensive in man hours, much more so than loaning a car.

milo
Aug 23, 2007, 09:25 AM
No, but our dealers immediately lend us a car while they are working on it. See the subtle difference there?

From my experience, this is the exception and not the rule. Which car do you drive? And is that standard for that car, or is your dealer just nice?

And cars are in the minority as well, how many other products give you a loaner?

For me a loaner machine wouldn't even be useful unless it was very long term, it wouldn't be worth taking all the time to hassle with installs and copy protection.

BKKbill
Aug 23, 2007, 10:45 AM
Remember, there's a tipping point. When a high enough percentage of people start using a product, there's a tipping point where growth of that product will suddenly explode.

When only a few people use product X, then you won't know many people who use it, so it won't really be on your radar and it's easy for you to have an incorrect impression of it. And there is much less support for that product from 3rd party manufacturers. And humans have a herd mentality, things that you see a lot of other people using are subconsciously believed to be better, or at least safer.

So there's a tipping point - once enough people use product X, then all of a sudden all the barriers to buying product X suddenly start to fall at once. And once those barriers fall and more people start to buy product X, then the barriers quickly are eliminated further and further at a faster and faster rate.

Some people say the tipping point for non-MS OSes is 8% marketshare, some say 15% or higher, but all the analysts say that there is a tipping point (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22tipping+point%22+Apple+OR+Mac+marketshare+OR+%22market+share%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) somewhere out there.

OK you have me won over not that I'm that easily convinced. So just where can I buy one of these product X thingys?

BKKbill
Aug 23, 2007, 11:00 AM
No I don't. You are comparing a $20,000+ purchase to a $1,500+ purchase in terms of service demanded? LOL. Cmon, at least pick something comparable if you are going to try and defend being cheap with ones business. You're luck apple gives such a nice warranty at all.

Don't be cheap. Buy a 2nd Windows computer if you need to save money, but don't let your business fail cause your cheap $1500 computer is in for repairs.

On a separate note, loaning a car is much easier than a computer. uh, who is going to move all the files from your broken computer to the loaner and then back to the repaired computer when done? Kinda expensive in man hours, much more so than loaning a car.

I don't understand why you would have to buy a 2nd Windows computer because your cheap $1500 computer is in for repairs. If you are trying to convince someone to do something just call them cheap, ya that works. I think if a 2nd computer was called for why not just get a mac. As you well know they just work. :p

pilotError
Aug 23, 2007, 11:21 AM
Remember, there's a tipping point. When a high enough percentage of people start using a product, there's a tipping point where growth of that product will suddenly explode.

When only a few people use product X, then you won't know many people who use it, so it won't really be on your radar and it's easy for you to have an incorrect impression of it. And there is much less support for that product from 3rd party manufacturers. And humans have a herd mentality, things that you see a lot of other people using are subconsciously believed to be better, or at least safer.

So there's a tipping point - once enough people use product X, then all of a sudden all the barriers to buying product X suddenly start to fall at once. And once those barriers fall and more people start to buy product X, then the barriers quickly are eliminated further and further at a faster and faster rate.

Some people say the tipping point for non-MS OSes is 8% marketshare, some say 15% or higher, but all the analysts say that there is a tipping point (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22tipping+point%22+Apple+OR+Mac+marketshare+OR+%22market+share%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) somewhere out there.

I agree with you at some level, but there are pluses and minuses to the situation.

Minuses:

Apple is a monopoly for Apple Hardware (obviously). For that very reason, they will only get limited penetration into the corporate world. Companies don't like spending big dollars moving into a specific hardware line and then have the rug pulled from under them. If Apple gets big enough and starts to license the specs to outside vendors (ie. Apple becomes more like MS) you'll see that position change.

Apple is expensive at first glance. Mom and Pop can get a PeeCee in Costco for $499 - complete. Looking at Mac Mini w/ no screen for the same price (assuming you can actually see one) isn't fair, but many look at the bottom line.

Pee Cee's are everywhere. Apple Stores aren't. That's changing with Best Buy and other big box stores starting to carry Apple brands, but they have a long way to go.

Pluses:

Word of Mouth. Let's face it, its cool to have a Mac. Some of it is Halo based from the consumer devices. Enough consumer penetration, and ultimately those people pressure companies to support the product.

Its not Microsoft. Let's face it, the whole verification lets crucify our customers, one license per machine, 400 versions but only 2 decent ones, your a thief nonsense is killing MS. I hear from so many people how fed up they are about this its unbelievable. And these are your normal home users. Even the OEM's hate the situation.

The world is Web Centric. You don't have to have a PC these days. Safari is more than good enough. There's some exception to this, but what do most consumers do? Surf the Web, shop the Web, Social Sites, Photos, Small Movies, pretty generic stuff.

Leopard - While its late, its reached Unix certification which is critical to government contracts. Those big fat $20,000 toilet type contracts! Also a plus for business, but not as critical for them.

WannaGoMac
Aug 23, 2007, 11:34 AM
I don't understand why you would have to buy a 2nd Windows computer because your cheap $1500 computer is in for repairs. If you are trying to convince someone to do something just call them cheap, ya that works. I think if a 2nd computer was called for why not just get a mac. As you well know they just work. :p

The point was that one can get something cheap, like a $300 Windows computer, so you can still be working in case they can't afford a 2nd $1500 iMac. Unless Apple has released new $300 Mac computers? :D

Anyway, point taken. Then get a used off eBay Mac for as cheap as you can as your backup rather than windows...

Roderick Usher
Aug 23, 2007, 04:15 PM
Would offering a gaming-suitable Mac (the fabled xMac) mean eliminating those qualitives? That is, Apple could offer a gaming-machine or "simple machines that look great and work well", but not both? I maintain that the current positive values of Mac (design, quality etc.) would not have to be sacrificed in the xMac.
Agreed. The idea of "Mac-ness" (however one defines that) and the requirements for a gaming computer are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that to suggest otherwise is to underestimate Apple's design capabilities.

The company that can best capitalize on a potential Mac gaming market is Apple - it's theirs if they want it. The idea that doing so would somehow injure them is slippery-slope nonsense; we're talking about one product here, not the bewildering array of oddly designed machines that contributed to their mid-90s fall from grace. And to all those who think the gaming market isn't freaking huge, think again... take a look at the revenues for Blizzard, Activision, or Electronic Arts, and then think of all the computer hardware sold to run their games. The question of market growth/decline is somewhat irrelevant, because computer gaming is an established, mature industry with a perpetual userbase willing to spend its money. Given the opportunities present, "It's Just Apple's Choice!" is not a satisfactory answer.

uraniumwilly
Aug 23, 2007, 04:53 PM
For Logic Pro people Apple is gaining Frustrationshare.

Do any of you rumorists have a crumb for the lowly Logic Pro audio types?

Kugo
Aug 24, 2007, 11:36 PM
Great to see the marketshare gaining. Hopefully Apple can keep up with rising demand and consumer expectations.
Apple: the king of Lilliput. :D
There are also potential QA issues due to production scale which hopefully Apple remains on top of.
Uh - I think they slipped down off that years ago. But what do I know? I only read Consumer Reports and Consumer Affairs and they're not officially Apple approved sites so what do they know?

They say some pretty terrible things too. Just like Apple Defects. Potential QA issues? Visit Apple Defects and get drowned in "potential QA issues". LOLZ

Hey anyone got any Kool-Aid? All this talk about taking over the world's got me ferociously thirsty! :D

Pathetic is what it is: bloody pathetic. Losers.

Kugo
Aug 24, 2007, 11:39 PM
As apple's % in the market goes up developers will start producing more software
Uh - more developers. Better developers. You won't have to settle for BBEdit and Panic any longer. You can actually get good tools - really good tools!

That was just a dream
That was just a dream
You heard me laughing
- M Stype

Kugo
Aug 25, 2007, 12:55 PM
This is great news. But I don't think it's good to get too much marketshare. I don't want everybody using my Mac!

Rom Rim
Aug 25, 2007, 05:07 PM
Mac OS X is the most secure operating system in the world. Plus it has the classic Apple interface. This is too much for people to resist. :apple:

Rom Rim
Aug 25, 2007, 05:10 PM
I love to see Apple growing. It will still take many years, but now people can visually see the demand for Apple is going up. I look for Apple to eventually be the leader in laptops and for them to have a much larger share of desktops.
Someday everyone might be using an Apple computer. Because they're forced to admit Apple computers are BEST. But I don't know if I like that - who can we pick on if all the PC users with Windows start using Mac OS X too? Are we supposed to be nice to them? Where's the fun in that? :apple:

WannaGoMac
Aug 25, 2007, 06:10 PM
Someday everyone might be using an Apple computer. Because they're forced to admit Apple computers are BEST. But I don't know if I like that - who can we pick on if all the PC users with Windows start using Mac OS X too? Are we supposed to be nice to them? Where's the fun in that? :apple:

Let's hope we don't go from a Windows monopoly to an Apple monopoly. competition is VITAL to keep innovation up and prices down.

MikeTheC
Aug 25, 2007, 08:15 PM
1/5 of an industry that is bigger than the movie industry. Do you know many people who don't play games on their pc?

*sticks hand in the air*

businezguy
Aug 26, 2007, 12:31 PM
Agreed. The idea of "Mac-ness" (however one defines that) and the requirements for a gaming computer are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that to suggest otherwise is to underestimate Apple's design capabilities.

The company that can best capitalize on a potential Mac gaming market is Apple - it's theirs if they want it. The idea that doing so would somehow injure them is slippery-slope nonsense; we're talking about one product here, not the bewildering array of oddly designed machines that contributed to their mid-90s fall from grace. And to all those who think the gaming market isn't freaking huge, think again... take a look at the revenues for Blizzard, Activision, or Electronic Arts, and then think of all the computer hardware sold to run their games. The question of market growth/decline is somewhat irrelevant, because computer gaming is an established, mature industry with a perpetual userbase willing to spend its money. Given the opportunities present, "It's Just Apple's Choice!" is not a satisfactory answer.


I completely agree with this statement. Apple really needs to focus far more on gaming. I am a professional who uses a computer extensively, and I'm looking for a computer that can perform my business tasks, and will also work well for gaming. I envision Apple designing a simply desktop that is easy to upgrade for more RAM, new video card, etc, and is sleek and small. It may not be the *best* gaming solution, but a *good* gaming solution out of the box. It could also be a good mid-end for those who don't need the Mac Pro.

MikeTheC
Aug 26, 2007, 06:59 PM
Well, what with EA committing to doing their new (and also high-end) games for Leopard/Intel, it's pretty clear Apple's going to have to put out when it comes to ALL of the many factors which go into a top-tier gaming experience. Naturally, it's a bit too soon to try and gauge the situation, since we've yet to see any of this stuff actually manifest, but it should be interesting. Hopefully Apple will be able to ride the crest of this next wave.

I mean, if/when Apple can win over the hearts and minds of the high-tech gamer crowd, this should serve as a bellwether for other potential market successes. C'mon, Apple!

Unfortunately, this will all pass me by because:
I don't game.
I don't own any x86-based Macs.

C 'est la vie...

Evangelion
Aug 27, 2007, 05:55 AM
I completely agree with this statement. Apple really needs to focus far more on gaming. I am a professional who uses a computer extensively, and I'm looking for a computer that can perform my business tasks, and will also work well for gaming. I envision Apple designing a simply desktop that is easy to upgrade for more RAM, new video card, etc, and is sleek and small. It may not be the *best* gaming solution, but a *good* gaming solution out of the box. It could also be a good mid-end for those who don't need the Mac Pro.

If I were asked what the "xMac" would be like, I would have a simple answer: Cube.

Take a look at the G4 Cube. It had an expansion-slot and 3.5" HD. Take the Cube (more or less), put a dual/quad-core Conroe in it (with a large, slow-moving fan). By default, the machine would be using Intel X3100 integrated graphics, but it would have a PCI-E x16-slot, so the user could add a separate hi-power 3D-card to it. The HD would be 3.5" HD.

Specs could be something like this:

2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, SuperDrive, 250GB HD: $999
2.67GHz C2D: 2GB RAM, Superdrive, 320GB HD: $1399
3.0GHz C2D: 2GB RAM, Superdrive, 500GB HD: $1699

Something along those lines. Of course there would be BTO-options to go around (3D-cards...). It would fill the hole between the iMac and Mac Pro quite nicely, when capabilities are concerned. I would call that machine "Mac Pro Mini", to differentiate it further from the consumer-oriented iMac.

It might not be as cheap as generic PC-boxes, but it would plug the hole in Apple's lineup. If you do not want an AIO, you have two choices: Mac Mini with slowish laptop-components, or quad-core workstation that uses server-specced hardware. Between those two is a HUGE hole. And if you want expandable machine, your only choice is that forementioned workstation.

gregorsamsa
Aug 27, 2007, 07:24 AM
Let's hope we don't go from a Windows monopoly to an Apple monopoly. competition is VITAL to keep innovation up and prices down.

I agree, but to some degree Apple already have a monopoly with OS X. Hence they give us weaker graphics, less RAM, less hardware choice, etc. & still continue to achieve excellent retail success.

Well, what with EA committing to doing their new (and also high-end) games for Leopard/Intel, it's pretty clear Apple's going to have to put out when it comes to ALL of the many factors which go into a top-tier gaming experience.

If I were asked what the "xmac" would look like, I would have a simple answer: Cube.

I like to think so too, but the current indicators aren't very promising. A short while back AppleInsider's so-called "reliable sources" correctly predicted new aluminium iMacs, demise of 17" iMac & stated that the Mini would receive one more minor upgrade, before it too went the way of the 17" iMac. Then there's SJ's recent comment that he can see a time when Mac sales will be "80-to-90 per cent notebooks." I assume he meant during his time at Apple which, realistically, can't be too long now.

Of course nothing can be ruled out, but this tells me we'll probably see at least one new Mac added to the laptop range, an improvement to the MacBooks GMA950 graphics, but we're unlikely to see a new midi desktop Mac. This also makes sense financially, as Apple's laptops (unlike their desktops) continue to achieve record sales. - Hope I'm wrong about no new Mac midi.

agreenster
Aug 28, 2007, 10:56 AM
CONGRATULATIONS APPLE!

Wow, that's huge news! I dont post much here anymore, but this one made me have to log in and give a shout out.

Wow, 17%. That's a really nice place to be. Big enough to be legit, small enough to still be boutique. Keep rockin it Steve