PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Focus, Digital Music and More to Come?


MacRumors
Feb 8, 2004, 09:59 PM
MacUser.co.uk's Paul Nesbitt raises (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=53130) some points about Apple's recent focus on music.

He reminds us that "the cornerstone of Apple's music strategy is to leverage its dominant position to sell more Macs to consumers".

That being said, Nesbitt is critical of Apple's apparent negligence of it's consumer line - specifically in regard to disappointing iMac sales and a lack of recent updates.

Readers are reminded, however, that Steve Jobs hinted at more to come (http://www.macrumors.com/events/mwsf2004.html) this year: "We're gonna make something of this year [2004]. We are working on some incredible new products for this year. It's going to be a great Mac year. We've got some wonderful things that we'll announce throughout the year that I think you will love as much as we do. It's going to be a great 20th anniversary year for the Macintosh."

stoid
Feb 8, 2004, 10:00 PM
*crosses fingers*

gwuMACaddict
Feb 8, 2004, 10:02 PM
apple hasn't neglected the consumer... they've been busy with LOTS of other stuff! gimme a break, man... between iTunes Music Store and G5 and iPod mini, what else does he WANT!?

steve-o is doing an excellent job

all hail steve-o

Other.au
Feb 8, 2004, 10:02 PM
Steve Jobs better come up with the goods and soon.

=)

pgwalsh
Feb 8, 2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors

He reminds us that "the cornerstone of Apple's music strategy is to leverage its dominant position to sell more Macs to consumers".
This may have been the initial strategy, but the iPod, iTunes, and iTMS have turned out to be much bigger in themsleves then the Macintosh to the rest of the world. In that, I'm not sure if it'll drive a lot more sales of comptuers.

His point of the lack of updates is well taken and the length of time seems to be getting long in the tooth.

arn
Feb 8, 2004, 10:06 PM
before someone says "steve said it was the year of the laptop last year..."

Steve said it was the year of the laptop with respect to laptop SALES... not product releases.

that is frequently misquoted.

arn

yoman
Feb 8, 2004, 10:06 PM
consumer products need a rehaul

iMac a G5 expandable video card slot
eMac and iBook faster G4's more VRAM more RAM HARD DRIVE space.
etc...

well you get the idea.

Note: I am impatient just like everyone else but I rather have it done right then have a bunch of rev.A lemons delivered.

;)

mattalici
Feb 8, 2004, 10:08 PM
Neglecting the consumer? Really.

I bet Apple is going to really come through with something Super Freakin Cool this year and everyone will write articles about how Apple is the innovation king and blah blah blah... buncha fair weather friends.

The only innovative thing coming out of the computer world right now are viruses.

Bunzi2k4
Feb 8, 2004, 10:08 PM
well mayb this year will be the "year of the imac"...

sworthy
Feb 8, 2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
apple hasn't neglected the consumer... they've been busy with LOTS of other stuff! between iTunes Music Store and G5 and iPod mini, what else does he WANT!?


that's exactly what neglect is. The itunes music store was announced last april, the G5 last june. The only recent announcement was the ipod mini, which was announced almost two months before it's readily available.

I hope there's a whole lot of updates soon.

MacEyeDoc
Feb 8, 2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
apple hasn't neglected the consumer... they've been busy with LOTS of other stuff! gimme a break, man... between iTunes Music Store and G5 and iPod mini, what else does he WANT!?

steve-o is doing an excellent job

all hail steve-o

We all would like a little update to the iMac and the G5's, but Steve-o is basically doing a good job. He is trying to dominate the digital music (and eventually video?) market like MS does for the OS. Can't blame a guy for tryin'. Of course, we Mac-ers are spoiled - we already have iTunes and iPods, so we're ready to move to the 2.6 Gual G5s and the new displays. I guess we'll just have to be a little more patient.

rjwill246
Feb 8, 2004, 10:11 PM
It's interesting that some people think that new models should come out weekly.........but then people complain after having just bought an existing model that is is now an 'obsolete' one and still others, that Apple is ripping them off by requiring new purchases, or the OS is being made better: another 'rip-off' and on and on.

It's good that we have diverse opinions but surely why don't the idiots with the silly ones remain silent -- and perhaps read some factual material?

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:12 PM
IT WAS THE BLOODY ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMPUTER AS WE KNOW IT AND APPLE LET IT PASS. YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY BETTER DELIVER THE GOODS!

It is time to aggressively start taking back market share. It will be a big failure if Apple does not grow market share 20-30% with all the buzz they have.

If you really look at the last quarter, it was the iPod that really made it stand out. PM units were flat and laptops were up only a bit.

Apple's priorities should be:

1. eMac replacement - a Dell killer for schools. Lots of schools are starting a hardware/software buy cycle.
2. iMac replacement - this thing has to be 20% of Apple's sales. Consumers don't like the current generations price:feature.
3. Even faster PowerMacs. The dual G5 is only as fast (in real terms) as a single P4 but costs three tiems as much as a white box PC.

The computer side of the Apple's business needs shorter cycles. We should get a fsater rev every three months - no splashy announcements - just faster machine every few months. Just like in the Windoze world.

coolfactor
Feb 8, 2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by rjwill246
It's interesting that some people think that new models should come out weekly.........but then people complain after having just bought an existing model that is is now an 'obsolete' one and still others, that Apple is ripping them off by requiring new purchases, or the OS is being made better: another 'rip-off' and on and on.

Well said! We're such a bunch of hypocrites. :p

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by rjwill246
It's interesting that some people think that new models should come out weekly.........but then people complain after having just bought an existing model that is is now an 'obsolete' one and still others, that Apple is ripping them off by requiring new purchases, or the OS is being made better: another 'rip-off' and on and on.

I think this is an Apple lover phenomenon. I can't wait to upgrade my PC every 18 months. New brain, mobo, ram and video card usually.

I built up a fast P4 system last fall. Athlon64 doesn't bother me at all. In a few months I will get one of those.

If Apple users had a significant architecture upgrade available to them every 18 months, I think they would buy more machines.

But our fastest laptops are a third the speed on the fastest Wintel machines and have been for a while. Why upgrade a TiBook 800? Is an Alum book really that much faster?

Booga
Feb 8, 2004, 10:21 PM
Market share would be nice... but the Mac news lately is even worse than that. Apple sold fewer Macintoshes in 2003 than they did in 2002. It's one thing to not grow as fast as the market, it's a another thing entirely to have shrinking unit sales.

They need to move the G5 throughout the product line in the first half of this year, and make sure they keep pace with the competition... and that's just to tread water. If they actually want to pick up new sales, they're going to have to be more aggressive about selling solutions into enterprise and promote home sales with everything from a "home office" pitch to a "home studio" pitch.

They're doing that piecemeal now with each release, but they need to take a more holistic view to their marketing, I think, and have web pages and pages (w/ pictures) devoted to how cool your whole home setup could be when you buy from Apple.

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Bunzi2k4
well mayb this year will be the "year of the imac"...

I hope so. I had a G4 iMac for a week and returned it. The G4 PM was a much better deal for the same amount of money (with monitor) and runs circles around the iMac I had.

I would like my next desktop to be an iMac that kicks the snot out of my MDD.

awulf
Feb 8, 2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Readers are reminded, however, that Steve Jobs hinted at more to come (http://www.macrumors.com/events/mwsf2004.html) this year: "We're gonna make something of this year [2004]. We are working on some incredible new products for this year. It's going to be a great Mac year. We've got some wonderful things that we'll announce throughout the year that I think you will love as much as we do. It's going to be a great 20th anniversary year for the Macintosh."

Was it me or did Steve mumble that a bit after he showed the poster to enlighten the audience, since most people were expecting something bigger.

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Booga
Market share would be nice... but the Mac news lately is even worse than that. Apple sold fewer Macintoshes in 2003 than they did in 2002. It's one thing to not grow as fast as the market, it's a another thing entirely to have shrinking unit sales.

They need to move the G5 throughout the product line in the first half of this year, and make sure they keep pace with the competition... and that's just to tread water. If they actually want to pick up new sales, they're going to have to be more aggressive about selling solutions into enterprise and promote home sales with everything from a "home office" pitch to a "home studio" pitch.

They're doing that piecemeal now with each release, but they need to take a more holistic view to their marketing, I think, and have web pages and pages (w/ pictures) devoted to how cool your whole home setup could be when you buy from Apple.

They have to roll out the G5 because they will need an answer to 64 bit Windows XP. This will drive MS's upgrade cycle until Longhorn comes. In a couple of weeks Intel will unveil CT - it's 64 bit extensions that are part of the 125 million transistor Prescott P4 (Northwood had 51 million, the extra cache and longer pipelines are not enough to explain all these extra transistors).

IMO: Apple's OS XI will be 64 bit (enough to justify more than just a point release) and they will be pushing hard to get as many Apple loyalists onto their 64 bit platform. I think Panther is the end of the road for us G4/G3 owners. Maybe they will do a 10.4 but my guess is that it will be gratis.

And if it's true I, for one, will be damn happy.

Messiatosh
Feb 8, 2004, 10:31 PM
This guy provided what I think is a fair and accurate portrayal of the current situation. A good snap shot of the time if you will.

The iMac does need to be taken care of, however it is important to note that any student can get a 1 Ghz eMac for $748 right now. How many kids have parents that know about the potential education discount?

In any case, the updates are to be "expected soon" as he says, and most of us here think they are also imminent.

Apple does need to and should be capatalizing on their market position right now, their media recognition has also never been higher. Something needs to be done soon before the window closes. With the current Apple leadership, I think they will get a lot out for us and everyone before that window closes.
:)

rocketboy
Feb 8, 2004, 10:39 PM
I am an avid fan of macrumors and constantly check for updates more than I care to admit. I also have not posted in the past.

Like many here, I eagerly got caught up in the rumors of a "pending" upgrade and other product announcement. Would it be 2.4 or 2.6? Would powerbooks get G5? Would the 30 inch cinema displays be announced? What day? Macworld SF, the week after, on the 20th anniversary or the Monday after, what did Railhead say? And when all else failed, maybe the Superbowl or the Monday after.

Now, it has all come and gone. And guess, what no big announcement(s). New Ipods, upgraded Xservers, software updates, and new iLife additions but no big consumer product.

In hindsight, it all makes sense to me and I hope to others. What makes sense is that Apple strengthened where they needed to and at the same time made space by not crowding other announcements. They used this space to allow emphasis on marketing. Marketing is something that mac fanatics (like those that haunt macrumors don't need - we are sold and then some). Ironically, they used this space for Pepsi to tie into Apple iTunes with their 100 million song marketing machine. We see it every time that we sign onto the Apple site. How could they do that properly and also be pushing a new apple product. So they push to the masses. They capture the press. They fight napster with a Pepsi tie-in and with garageband and with new ipods. They also upgrade what does not conflict by upgrading Xserves.

They also delay slightly and build up for a bigger consumer announcement which will eventually come and which will please the faithful fanatics and also capture the press and continue a well spaced out campaign of being in the news in a positive fashion. Brilliant and well thought out.

stoid
Feb 8, 2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
I think Panther is the end of the road for us G4/G3 owners. Maybe they will do a 10.4 but my guess is that it will be gratis.

I sure as hell hope not!!

The main reason I bought Apple instead of a cheaper faster Wintel book, is that I know that Apple product have a longer life. If my laptop can't run the newest OS in only one and a half years, I'll be severely pissed!!! It's illogical to complain that new hardware released shortly after you bought yours makes what you have obsolete, but that the OS would through you out in the cold is another matter entirely!! If Apple goes to 64-bit ONLY OS, even having been an Apple user since the IIc, I just might ditch them.

I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS. I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software! Maybe 2 versions of 10.4, a 32-bit and 64-bit, but I don't think that Apple is in any hurry to alienate 90+% of it's customers. There are many schools that really use the latest Mac OS, but don't have the latest hardware. Making the Mac OS 64-bit ONLY is the worst decision Apple could POSSIBLY make.

yoman
Feb 8, 2004, 10:41 PM
of course this is my sole and utterly ignorant opinion, however, I assume that Apple will release new products whatever they may be by March 17th 2004 (the last date an up-to-date program request for i-life can be postmarked.) so that is within roughly 5 weeks.

Let us hope it is much sooner. :)

rfenik
Feb 8, 2004, 10:43 PM
I like the updates and I don't. I got a PB but a new one was released a month later.... That kind of pissed me off. Also, if I would have waited that one extra month I would have gotten Panther for $20 instead of the $79 I paid.

I would like an iTunes type of program for movies. I would definately pay $10 or so to download a full entire movie... QT movies look pretty damn good, and they should use that to tap into the movie market.

The only thing that I hate about QuickTime is that it doesn't go full screen. I have to use MPlayer to view full screen. Why didn't they put a full screen feature in Quicktime? Do they think that people like watching movies with a window bordering it? At least they didn't do it with DVD player....

I think this year is going to be the year of the downloadable movie.

-ko

gwuMACaddict
Feb 8, 2004, 10:47 PM
im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??

(no)

i mean, it'd be neat and all... and i would prolly get all tingly inside and have to have one, but jeez... i'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it... g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

sahil
Feb 8, 2004, 10:49 PM
you need to have the full version (registered and all) to view movies in full screen...
did u seriously think that that integral feature was a miss in quicktime...silly you!

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by stoid
I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS. I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software! Maybe 2 versions of 10.4, a 32-bit and 64-bit, but I don't think that Apple is in any hurry to alienate 90+% of it's customers. There are many schools that really use the latest Mac OS, but don't have the latest hardware. Making the Mac OS 64-bit ONLY is the worst decision Apple could POSSIBLY make.

How does Apple going 64 bit effect how you use your current machine? People still use Wallstreets with OS 8.6 and 9.1.

At some point in the next 1-2 years Apple will have to go 64bit. I don't see how they will be able to support 32 and 64 bit versions of all their software. They are too small.

PHARAOHk
Feb 8, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by rfenik
The only thing that I hate about QuickTime is that it doesn't go full screen. I have to use MPlayer to

Quicktime Pro does full screen

desdomg
Feb 8, 2004, 10:50 PM
2004: the year that Rumor sites were kicked into touch.

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??

(no)

i mean, it'd be neat and all... and i would prolly get all tingly inside and have to have one, but jeez... i'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it... g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

A 2.53 GHz Dell POS with 15" TFT and the same RAM, HD, Optical and I/O as the iMac is $818 after rebate.

gwuMACaddict
Feb 8, 2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

i see what you mean... but thats a little different from what i'm saying... you put a g5 in the imac and then youre REALLY gonna have some high priced machines all the way around...

lewdvig
Feb 8, 2004, 10:59 PM
I don't think that the 130nm process G5s left in the channel are going to cost too much now that faster G5s are immenent. And the 90nm versions are cheaper to make.

So 90nm G5s that can't do 2.4 or 2.6 can be binned as cheaper parts. Or maybe they have half the cache. IBM is serious about this chip so multiple grades should be easy. There will be lots of ways to differentiate performance for consumer and pro machines.

I read that the new G5s do 25watts at 2GHz. That is great! It easily beats the P4M and Athlon machines - and we don't know how much slewing will halp power/heat on the new G5. G5 PBs can't be that far away.

Putting 1.6 or 1.8 G5s in all iMacs would be great.

BUT

iMacs and eMacs leverage the PowerBook line for motherboards. I don't think we will see G5 consumer macs until after the G5 books are out.

That is assuming the consumer mac form factors stay the same.

I think we will see a shake up in the whole lineup this year. And at a minimum I expect that future G5 apples will be labeled as '64bit ready' or some such marketingese.

pgwalsh
Feb 8, 2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
i see what you mean... but thats a little different from what i'm saying... you put a g5 in the imac and then youre REALLY gonna have some high priced machines all the way around... Didn't appear that's what you said.. You seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch and were bitchin about everybody bitchen :p

The G4 is expensive to produce and I'm not sure how it compares to the G5. However, the FishKill plant was developed to spread the cost so smaller companies could manufacture chips without the hight cost of building a plant etc.

It' my understanding that the G5's aren't as expensive as the G4's when the G4's were launched. Nonethless, Apple could probably keep the prices lower with the G5. As other people have mentioned they would benefit from having duals in the high end models (all of them) and singles in the consumer models. I would like to see them at the same speed too.

cavaleri
Feb 8, 2004, 11:20 PM
Friday, February 6

Next-generation Powerbook G4 details: A modest update to Apple's pro laptops, to bridge the considerable gap between the current models and the Powerbook G5 that will be introduced in the late third quarter, is expected early this spring. The update will be almost entirely in the specifications list and will not introduce any major enclosure or architectural changes.

Details include PowerPC 7457 G4 processors at 1.25, 1.33, and 1.467 or possibly 1.533GHz. There may be 1MB DDR backside L3 cache memory on some high-end models, a feature that is missing from the current Powerbooks. The models which now employ the Radeon 9600 Mobility will probably be upgraded to the Radeon 9700 Mobility, offering a 30% boost to 3D performance along with reduced power consumption and operating temperatures. Larger hard drives and high-performance disk options (5400 and 7200RPM) are expected to round out the update. It is widely expected to be announced with little fanfare, but should keep new buyers interested until the PBG5 drops in August or September at 1.6-2.0GHz.


...
...

if true, it kind of seems that apple would be intent on extending the life of the G4's for a bit longer *sigh*... I for one am hopeing for either an iMac g5 product, or a faster single proc g5 PM with lower heat dissapation req's... I might get the latter sooner than the former if I had to guess based on the above. If they do upgrade the G4 procs on the powerbooks, I'd have to assume they'll do the same for the iMac's to breath a little bit more longevity into those machines.

gwuMACaddict
Feb 8, 2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Didn't appear that's what you said.. You seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch and were bitchin about everybody bitchen :p

huh? i'm tired and confused and grumpy... i do get tired of people moaning about needing a g5 to surf the web... that was my only real point...

mikeyredk
Feb 8, 2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
I read that the new G5s do 25watts at 2GHz.

where?

howtoplaydead
Feb 8, 2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by yoman
consumer products need a rehaul

iMac a G5 expandable video card slot
eMac and iBook faster G4's more VRAM more RAM HARD DRIVE space.
etc...

well you get the idea.

Note: I am impatient just like everyone else but I rather have it done right then have a bunch of rev.A lemons delivered.

;)

A bunch of lemmons help stock
I preffer lemmons than nothing... besides, I'm not going to buy these, I'm just waiting to plot out my next Mac purchase (sometime in the summer of 2005).

Never buy a rev. A
Although i'm quiet happy w/ my digital audio 733 (rev. A)
ok, avoid lemmons and thus don't buy a rev. A, but only some rev. As are flawed.

starpolyp
Feb 8, 2004, 11:37 PM
This iMac 500 DVse that im on (3yrs old) is doing fine but, ive been itching for something new. I dont like the specs of the current iMacs and the PM is too big for my area. Something that i can upgrade, but can still fit in my room would be greatly appreciated. I dont care if it is headless, or has an attached LCD, I just want the ability to upgrade the graphics card, etc. The ability to have access the hardrive would be nice.
I'm not buying anything w/o a G5 either. Why spend a ton of money on old technology? I will wait as long as it takes to get a G5. The sooner the better.

ericdano
Feb 8, 2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??

(no)

i mean, it'd be neat and all... and i would prolly get all tingly inside and have to have one, but jeez... i'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it... g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

Exactly. I still know people who use 6500s to do email and word processing.

ryanw
Feb 8, 2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by mattalici
The only innovative thing coming out of the computer world right now are viruses.

Well, I feel left out... my mac hasn't had one virus this entire year.. or ever for that matter... I'm sure macs will have their day... but for now we've been left outta' this whole virus mess. Once virus' catch up onto macs all the PC guys will say, "SEE, Macs have viruses too.." But they'll forget all the years we've had of being virus free.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 8, 2004, 11:49 PM
It is hard to argue that the entire line is due for an update. The last thing to get a real update was the iBook in October (and that was already four months ago).

Basically, with exception of iBooks (and the xServe) every computer in Apple Store that is availible right now was in there six months ago at about the same price. Meanwhile, the iTMS and the iPod continually get updates and all the press.

I posted about month ago how I was worried that Apple was forgetting the average Mac User in the world and concentrating on digital music.

Apple needs to release some new "low end" computers just to hang on to the segment of the market they have left. I am in the market for a new computer soon (I currently have a G3 iMac DV) and right now Apple has nothing for me. I don't think that the iMac (or even the eMac) is worth what you pay for it, and I can totally forget about anything from the PowerMac line. If I have $1000 to spend I can get and eMac and that is that. I am seriously considering buying a cheap laptop and putting Linux on it.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 8, 2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by ericdano
Exactly. I still know people who use 6500s to do email and word processing.

That is a good point, my father also still has an 8088 in his basement that he uses and runs DR-DOS on.

evilbert420
Feb 9, 2004, 12:10 AM
I think Apple's classification of Consumer and Pro are obsolete.

A "consumer" cares about value, features, and longevity. The iMac line is expensive, has CPUs that are long-in-the-tooth, two-generations-old video, and a lack of longevity at this point (G4s are on the way out). The iMacs have pitiful game performance, so-so-video and audio performance, and are expensive.

A "pro" cares about performance, reliability, and longevity. Well, the Power Mac G5s seem to deliver on that pretty well. Pros aren't running games on their computers, they're running graphics, design, video editing, audio/music... they're probably not playing games and doing iLife. Maybe they're schools, businesses, etc. that need to run the machine for 3-4 years before replacing it or getting a new lease.

There's a whole legion of computer purchasers who lie between Apple's Consumer and Pro lines. People like me. We want to run games at respectable frame rates. We want to run Final Cut Express, Logic Audio, etc. Maybe we want to add another hard drive, or upgrade a component or two during the lifecycle of the machine. Apple has completely neglected us, instead catering to its skewed ideas of consumer vs. pro. I have to buy Pro to get the features I want, yet I consider myself a consumer.

Apple obviously likes to work in 3s.. the Papa Bear/Mama Bear/Baby Bear scenarios. Well, the eMac and iMac should be at the bottom, and the Power Mac at the top. In the middle should be a G5 machine with an upgradeable video card and room for a second hard drive.

evilbert420
Feb 9, 2004, 12:13 AM
"I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS"

FYI, when the G5 came out there was a lot of discussion of whether there was any point to a 64-bit OS.

I don't remember there being any real reason why an OS should be 64-bit vs. 32-bit. The OS isn't doing any massive computations like applications/games do that would give you the value of the 64-bit processor.

As long as a 32-bit OS can run 64-bit APPS, then we're all good. And that's right where Apple is right now.

ldjessee
Feb 9, 2004, 12:23 AM
Hello,

Intel made the announcement last week it would upgrade thier processors to 3.4GHz. Didnt they promise 4GHz by Christmas 2003 when they announced 3GHz by Christmas 2002?

Funny, I saw no big 'stink' raised for Intel taking their sweet time, how they were going to fall off the face of the planet for taking over a year to get more than a .2GHz boost from their CPUs.

Intel CPUs have gone from 3.0 GHz Christmas 2002 to 3.2 by Christmas 2003, and now in Feb 2004, have they been annouced to be 3.4 GHz soon.

So, not really sure about the comment that PCs get faster processors every quarter.

I would wait, look and see what Apple does this year, then at the end of the year, layout how Apple failed to meet my expectations for the year, instead of speculating how they are going to do it.

As for the mention of the Dell machine and its price, you could say the same thing with comparisons between a Hyundai and a BMW. Why does the BMW cost more, when they both have the same general level of specifications? (Hyundai 350 L vs BMW 3 series 325i; comparison on Hyundai's website)

I would still rather have the BMW over the Hyundai. Does BMW worry that it does not have the cheapest cars in the US? Not at all.

Does Steve Jobs worry that he does not have the cheapest desktop or laptops? I do not think so.

(of course, these are just my opinions based on my limited knowledge and experience)

LDJessee

pgwalsh
Feb 9, 2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by evilbert420
I think Apple's classification of Consumer and Pro are obsolete.

A "consumer" cares about value, features, and longevity. The iMac line is expensive, has CPUs that are long-in-the-tooth, two-generations-old video, and a lack of longevity at this point (G4s are on the way out). The iMacs have pitiful game performance, so-so-video and audio performance, and are expensive.

A "pro" cares about performance, reliability, and longevity. Well, the Power Mac G5s seem to deliver on that pretty well. Pros aren't running games on their computers, they're running graphics, design, video editing, audio/music... they're probably not playing games and doing iLife. Maybe they're schools, businesses, etc. that need to run the machine for 3-4 years before replacing it or getting a new lease.

There's a whole legion of computer purchasers who lie between Apple's Consumer and Pro lines. People like me. We want to run games at respectable frame rates. We want to run Final Cut Express, Logic Audio, etc. Maybe we want to add another hard drive, or upgrade a component or two during the lifecycle of the machine. Apple has completely neglected us, instead catering to its skewed ideas of consumer vs. pro. I have to buy Pro to get the features I want, yet I consider myself a consumer.

Apple obviously likes to work in 3s.. the Papa Bear/Mama Bear/Baby Bear scenarios. Well, the eMac and iMac should be at the bottom, and the Power Mac at the top. In the middle should be a G5 machine with an upgradeable video card and room for a second hard drive. Well, I see and agree with what your saying, but some may say the 1.6 is the very computer you're talking about. However, with regards to competition it's not. So essentially if you're going to run an Apple computer that's what you get. I don't care for the lineup...

michael666
Feb 9, 2004, 12:33 AM
g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

A new iteration of the "g3/g4" posts flooding every thread here before the G4 iBooks came out. :D

savar
Feb 9, 2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by stoid

I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS. I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software! Maybe 2 versions of 10.4, a 32-bit and 64-bit, but I don't think that Apple is in any hurry to alienate 90+% of it's customers. There are many schools that really use the latest Mac OS, but don't have the latest hardware. Making the Mac OS 64-bit ONLY is the worst decision Apple could POSSIBLY make.

No doubt.

Remember how long ago powermacs first came out? The classic OS was at best only around 10% PPC native...OS X was the first Mac OS that was fully PPC native.

I doubt much of the OS even benefits from 64 bits. I'm sure certain parts will be recompiled/optimized for the G5 (some already have), but there will be 32 bit versions included as well.

Of course, who knows when OS XI will actually get here? Maybe it will be 64 bit...Apple still has a lot of space to improve OS X, and that means a longer life cycle.

Edot
Feb 9, 2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by evilbert420
"I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS"

FYI, when the G5 came out there was a lot of discussion of whether there was any point to a 64-bit OS.

I don't remember there being any real reason why an OS should be 64-bit vs. 32-bit. The OS isn't doing any massive computations like applications/games do that would give you the value of the 64-bit processor.

As long as a 32-bit OS can run 64-bit APPS, then we're all good. And that's right where Apple is right now.

How could you possible fill a floppy disk either?:rolleyes: What if the OS could do massive computations while still allowing for other apps to do their work. How cool could the OS get? OS X does not run well on older hardware for that very reason. Software will only become more complex and the OS will follow, or lead.

inkswamp
Feb 9, 2004, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by lewdvig
IT WAS THE BLOODY ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMPUTER AS WE KNOW IT AND APPLE LET IT PASS. YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY BETTER DELIVER THE GOODS!

What did you want? Some tearful, nostalgic look back? Maybe Steve could appear on a special heartfelt episode of Oprah and unveil an iMac G5 that looks like the original Mac while they sip tea and weep. I mean, really, I was thrilled that Apple decided to forego any false nostalgia, which is usually just a pretense for the marketing dept to squeeze any publicity out of it. It's all self-congratulatory wankery anyway, so who cares? Apple is doing their best work now. Why waste time looking back?

One of my favorite bands is the Canadian trio Rush. When a bunch of younger bands got together to put out a Rush tribute, the band balked and got very upset about it. The reason? Such a look back carries the hidden message that the best is in the past. Rush didn't want that as they feel that they are still vital and doing great work (and they are!) I think Apple has no reason to look back or do any special 20th anniversary bunk. Let MacWorld and MacAddict do that for them--at least the editors of those magazines did it honestly and with a minimum of market-speak.

iomar
Feb 9, 2004, 12:50 AM
We'll wait and see! It sounds exciting!

eliamx
Feb 9, 2004, 01:01 AM
I am waiting for a lovely game console from Apple. Heck! Everyone else is going to use the IBM chips including Microsoft's XboxNext , Sony's PS3, and Nintendo's MarioCrap128. I want Apple to step in and destroy the competition. Something similar to the Japanese PSX by Sony w/ DVDr, G5 2ghz or higher, tivo-like features, firewire 800, a mini OS for basic settings (OSX ce ?) lol, and builtin 120GB HD w/ a special Safari and iLife features built-in. Airport 802.11g builtin. I'd buy it, and the iPDA. :-)

stoid
Feb 9, 2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by lewdvig
How does Apple going 64 bit effect how you use your current machine? People still use Wallstreets with OS 8.6 and 9.1.

At some point in the next 1-2 years Apple will have to go 64bit. I don't see how they will be able to support 32 and 64 bit versions of all their software. They are too small.

My friend has a Wallstreet and IS running OS X. I understand that at some point my computer won't be able to run the latest OS, but Wallstreets are at least 4 years old and can still run the latest OS. For my computer to go THAT obsolete in 2 years just seems ridiculous.

In fact with the added speed of 10.3, the high school I attended will be upgrading fully to OS X including a low-intensity (typing) lab of old Ruby iMacs.

iMeowbot
Feb 9, 2004, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by sworthy
that's exactly what neglect is. The itunes music store was announced last april, the G5 last june. The only recent announcement was the ipod mini, which was announced almost two months before it's readily available.

There were also the iBook G4 and revised PB 15" in October, the 20" iMac around November, the 2x1.8 G5 about December, and the G5 Xserve is about to ship.

IBM is scheduled to officially present its 90nm 970 in one week. I'd wait until then to see if they announce availability dates before getting too antsy about when Apple is going to ship more impressive updates.

punkmac
Feb 9, 2004, 01:44 AM
First Powerbooks with the low wattage g5 then iMacs with the same.

Right now it seems the low end Powermac is the best deal, with an LCD.


Only time will tell.

I.

hose this!
Feb 9, 2004, 02:43 AM
You know, so long as Apple/Steve0 is going to charge a premium for all their products, they may as well bring out the updates a bit more quickly rather than milking product lines.

I've got three fat ones I'll spend on a 30", but bring it out already! IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Ditto for the G5 Powerbook. Or at least cut the prices on the outdated G4 powerbooks. $3000 for a laptop built around a plodding near obsolete processor incapable of running the nextgen (64 bit) OS? Color me a sucker.

Okay, so I bought one anyway... don't make me hate myself...

CmdrLaForge
Feb 9, 2004, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

A 2.53 GHz Dell POS with 15" TFT and the same RAM, HD, Optical and I/O as the iMac is $818 after rebate.

Well said. And thats the point. Not that I need a faster computer for my daily task (except gaming :( ), but if I pay premium price I like to get a premium product. And one of the parameters is speed. :mad:

Come on Apple - release the G5 cube !

Phobophobia
Feb 9, 2004, 04:38 AM
1. Consumer machines will NOT be upgradeable. People who upgrade their computer make up a very small percentage of the entire computing market. There is no reason for Apple to make consumer products upgradeable. Apple doesn't get money from parts being bought, the third-party companies do. To reiterate, consumer machines will not be upgradeable. I am not saying that it is impossible that they will every be upgradeable, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. (In other words, no.) If you want upgradeability, get a Powermac--Apple will thank you for it. (Higher profit margin :D )

2.Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS. Although it is definitely the next step for the future, Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS until AT LEAST 5 years from now. They wouldn't desert customers like that, just trust me.

3. Apple is not going to compete with pricing. Apple doesn't need to compete with Dell, or any other company for that matter, on prices. Although Apple will definitely stride to make a computer that is $100 or so less than the current eMac, they WILL NOT sell a computer for less than $700. Lowering prices has less of a benefit than you think, especially since people who shop mainly by price aren't very loyal customers.

Thank you for your time, I don't want to see any arguments in relation to the above brought up again in this thread.

The Shadow
Feb 9, 2004, 04:46 AM
I agree with most of what Nesbutt wrote. I love the Cube, but with respect, most people including Nesbutt, seem to have forgotten that the Cube failed because Apple pricing was waaay too expensive.

The 500 MHZ Cube was about US$500 ($1000 Aussi at the time) more expensive than the low end Powermac 533, which is why I bought a PM. I was on a tight budget at the time.

So bringing back a G5 Cube would not necessarily solve the iMac price/performance equation. A cheaper, G5 iMac would though. But I think this must be outside Apple's control otherwise surely G5 iMacs would already exist.

So while I agree with the criticisms of Apple's consumer line, I think the premise of the article, namely that "Apple" has "taken its eye off the ball" regarding its consumer products, is obviously incorrect.

The Shadow
Feb 9, 2004, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Phobophobia
3. Apple is not going to compete with pricing. Apple doesn't need to compete with Dell, or any other company for that matter, on prices.

Agreed, but Apple does need to compete in terms of overall value. The basic economics assumptions - consumers are rational and prefer more to less. Until the iMac gets G5 chips, sales will be down, as the value proposition, which was once good, is now poor.

Originally posted by Phobophobia
Thank you for your time, I don't want to see any arguments in relation to the above brought up again in this thread.

You ARE kidding, right? :p

ph_555_shag
Feb 9, 2004, 06:27 AM
I am waiting for a lovely game console from Apple. Heck! Everyone else is going to use the IBM chips including Microsoft's XboxNext , Sony's PS3, and Nintendo's MarioCrap128. I want Apple to step in and destroy the competition. Something similar to the Japanese PSX by Sony w/ DVDr, G5 2ghz or higher, tivo-like features, firewire 800, a mini OS for basic settings (OSX ce ?) lol, and builtin 120GB HD w/ a special Safari and iLife features built-in. Airport 802.11g builtin. I'd buy it, and the iPDA. :-)

u obviously dont remember apples last try at this do u?..... neither do most people, i think it was called pippin

Phobophobia
Feb 9, 2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by The Shadow
You ARE kidding, right? :p

No, I am not kidding. Plus, anyone who DOES bring it up again should be ignored immediately.

ionas
Feb 9, 2004, 06:50 AM
"<i>2.Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS. Although it is definitely the next step for the future, Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS until AT LEAST 5 years from now. They wouldn't desert customers like that, just trust me.</i>"

You are wrong there.
While i cannot make predictions when they will got 64 bit on the os side; and while i think that there are still some carbon apps out that needs to be remade (finder, appleworks, whatever...), i think they will go 64bit when windows goes 64 bit (=intel uses amd64bit x86 extention too)

most important is that the g5 (and g6 for sure) will have 32/64 bit hybridity.

once in time apple will clean out mac os x and kill off all their apps that relay on legancy apis.

this will be the time when they will change internal structures to 64bit imho.

while 32bit applications will still run, the os wont run on non 64bit cpus anymore.

many ppls here claming that old g3 and g4 systems still run ox 10.3 are right, still the end of the g4 line will get a faster target than back in time, while the first g5 products will offer longlivety (or however that is spelled)

Mac
Feb 9, 2004, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Phobophobia
1. Consumer machines will NOT be upgradeable. People who upgrade their computer make up a very small percentage of the entire computing market. There is no reason for Apple to make consumer products upgradeable. Apple doesn't get money from parts being bought, the third-party companies do. To reiterate, consumer machines will not be upgradeable. I am not saying that it is impossible that they will every be upgradeable, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. (In other words, no.) If you want upgradeability, get a Powermac--Apple will thank you for it. (Higher profit margin :D )

2.Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS. Although it is definitely the next step for the future, Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS until AT LEAST 5 years from now. They wouldn't desert customers like that, just trust me.

3. Apple is not going to compete with pricing. Apple doesn't need to compete with Dell, or any other company for that matter, on prices. Although Apple will definitely stride to make a computer that is $100 or so less than the current eMac, they WILL NOT sell a computer for less than $700. Lowering prices has less of a benefit than you think, especially since people who shop mainly by price aren't very loyal customers.

Thank you for your time, I don't want to see any arguments in relation to the above brought up again in this thread.

Phobophobia, you have some very well founded points, and I get what you are saying. The consumer line is of necessity the line thatīs supposed to be the "all in one" solution for the consumer - also generating more cash to Steve-O and the cash bin.

One point caught my attention - point 2. You seem very certain - whatīs your inside relation with Cupertino here? Maybe itīs just me, but do you work for Apple?

billyboy
Feb 9, 2004, 08:21 AM
Dont panic. There are some big changes in trends happening or soon to be underway in computers. Trends take more than a couple of months to get going and bear fruit, and Apple are, I think, going to benefit at last from being ahead of the game. They have been practicing and working on the next generation way of computing for a while already.

The MHz myth is gradually being turned on its head with Centrino. AMD are also positioning themselves to promote their chips which will be lower MHz but supposedly better performance than Intel. So Apple are already there and can only benefit from the news that will percolate and explain to the masses that big MHz on the label of a PC means very little - but relatively big MHz on a Mac means hell of a lot.

XP is going to be replaced in the next whenever years, but Apple are 3 years if not more ahead of the mighty Longhorn, and every mention of what Longhorn might be able to do is going to be used by Apple, who will show that any future Longhorn feature is precisely what Mac users have access to now.

Viruses are going to be getting a really thorny issue, and Apple have the solution, and have had the solution for years. The masses will get to hear about that too as iTMS grabs the attention of the masses.

Trusted Computing the MS way is going to pee more and more people off, so a growing percentage of PC users will be looking for alternatives to Windows.

Judging by what Steve Jobs has said, Apple are quietly confident that laptops are the way ahead and he has been proven right so far. Apple's laptops are selling in greater numbers than ever, despite only being crappy G4.

G5 clusters and DIY supercomputing is going to grab headlines. The raw power of G5s has not gone unnoticed in university circles and again, in time the non-consumer market share will move Apple's way - and people will be using Macs at home because they use them at work - just how PCs find themselves into the home nowadays..

So things take time, but once underway, the momentum can be picked up very quickly. As far as brand spanking new releases every five minutes, Id say, take your time Apple, keep moving along with the plans that have been gathering pace the last two or three years and just make doubly sure they are focussing all their spare brain capacity on solving the traditional weakness in their line the entry level Mac, and the recently flagging iMac range.

Foxer
Feb 9, 2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Readers are reminded, however, that Steve Jobs hinted at more to come this year: "We're gonna make something of this year [2004]. We are working on some incredible new products for this year. It's going to be a great Mac year. We've got some wonderful things that we'll announce throughout the year that I think you will love as much as we do. It's going to be a great 20th anniversary year for the Macintosh."

What was he going to say? We've got nothing. Are you happy? We're tapped out. This year will stink.

The line needs refreshing from top to bottom. A sharp new eMac, all new iMac, G5 PowerBooks and faster PowerMacs. What we don't need is a 50GB iPod.

Anyone want to guess which we'll get first?

("Leverage to increase computer market share." Ha! More like "cash cow to milk til it's dry.")

stoid
Feb 9, 2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Foxer
What was he going to say? We've got nothing. Are you happy? We're tapped out. This year will stink.

<rant>

What in the world are you people getting all worked up about??!??!?

Need I remind you IT'S ONLY THR SECOND WEEK IN FEBRUARY!!!! THERE ARE STILL OVER 10 MONTHS LEFT THIS YEAR!!!!

Steve said "great stuff this YEAR!" not "great stuff BEFORE MARCH!" or "HAVE DONE great stuff this year!" it's still coming, PATIENCE.

Just cool your jets!

If Apple hasn't done anything else spectacular by July, then it might be cause to worry, a little, maybe (they would still have 5 months at that point)

</rant>

Foxer
Feb 9, 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by stoid
What in the world are you people getting all worked up about??!??!?

Need I remind you IT'S ONLY THR SECOND WEEK IN FEBRUARY!!!! THERE ARE STILL OVER 10 MONTHS LEFT THIS YEAR!!!!


I wasn't stating that they have nothing, I was simply pointing out that it is kind of silly to rely on statements of the CEO at the big public event that MWSF is. Of course he's going to say the year will be great.

I, like most everyone else here, have no idea what 2004 will end up being like. I hope it's great, I've got money to spend on a new PowerMac.

Phobophobia
Feb 9, 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Mac
Phobophobia, you have some very well founded points, and I get what you are saying. The consumer line is of necessity the line thatīs supposed to be the "all in one" solution for the consumer - also generating more cash to Steve-O and the cash bin.

One point caught my attention - point 2. You seem very certain - whatīs your inside relation with Cupertino here? Maybe itīs just me, but do you work for Apple?

I have no inside relations. My certainty is completely based off knowledge available to everyone.

david_r_p
Feb 9, 2004, 10:15 AM
I would like to see G5s across the entire product line. I'd buy a new iMac for my wife today if they would update.

lewdvig
Feb 9, 2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
The MHz myth is gradually being turned on its head with Centrino. AMD are also positioning themselves to promote their chips which will be lower MHz but supposedly better performance than Intel. So Apple are already there and can only benefit from the news that will percolate and explain to the masses that big MHz on the label of a PC means very little - but relatively big MHz on a Mac means hell of a lot.

Centrino laptops are selling quite poorly compared to desktop replacements. People buy bigger numbers - AMD's sucfcessful rating scheme proves it.

The real MHz myth is here, and in every other Mac forum or NG, that somehow the lowly G4 is superior to a much faster clocked P4 or Athlon. As the owner of multiple Macs and PCs I can say this with certainty.

lewdvig
Feb 9, 2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Phobophobia
I have no inside relations. My certainty is completely based off knowledge available to everyone.

So in other words you have no business telling anyone what to talk about. So why don't you just behave. K?

michael666
Feb 9, 2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Foxer
The line needs refreshing from top to bottom. A sharp new eMac, all new iMac, G5 PowerBooks and faster PowerMacs. What we don't need is a 50GB iPod.

Anyone want to guess which we'll get first?

Well, I'd like to have a 50GB+ iPod, with video capabilities, and of course something that has to do with wireless. I'm not in the market for Powermacs/Powerbooks. I'm happy with my iBook.

Awimoway
Feb 9, 2004, 10:52 AM
Nesbitt's sentiments have been repeated a lot here lately, especially during that disgraceful rant over no anniversary devices.

I am no Apple apologist--I use Macs, but I don't hesitate to say when the emperor has no clothes (can you guess which side I took over the iLife and iPod-mini pricing debates?).

However this time I think Nesbitt and a lot of Mac fans are way out of bounds. This short-term memory, "What have you done for me lately?" insatiable thirst for new devices is ridiculous. It's spoiled and immature.

We know G5's are on the way for the rest of the line. In the meantime, Apple has picqued our interest with some interesting additions: a 20" widescreen iMac. iChat AV can now be used with Windows users, making iSight devices more compelling purchases.

Let's all chill out and rest easy that new stuff will come soon enough.

Phobophobia
Feb 9, 2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by lewdvig
So in other words you have no business telling anyone what to talk about. So why don't you just behave. K?

Someone needs a hug.

Playball
Feb 9, 2004, 10:58 AM
I think y'all are fighting the wrong battle when talking about Apple hardware price points and product positioning. It's not that Apple needs to change the product lines to meet new price points, but rather, Apple nees to change the prices of their products on an ongoing basis to meet the market's new price/performance expectations.

sure, I'm upset that the upgrade cycles are so long (and unpredictable), but what mystifies me is why there isn't periodic discounting during between upgrades? Isn't there a tremendous disincentive to buy any Mac right now, if a purchaser knows that you're buying the price & value proposition that existed when the product was introduced? (i.e. if I'm looking at a 17" iMac, I'm looking at the price performance combination of ?6 months ago. Since I'm not a dummy, I know that performance doubles and prices half every 18 months (Moore's law), so that example iMac should - if not more powerful - be lower priced.

Really, Apple could break the cycle by just loping off $50 every calenday month until the next upgrade & repricing.

(that iMac price/performance would be a whole lot better if it cost $300.)

macnews
Feb 9, 2004, 11:00 AM
I am glad to see Apple focusing on other areas but what about the G5 upgrades? Unlike Intel, Apple will suffer if they don't have 3 Ghz machines by summer (at least announced by July/August). The G5 was a long awaited processor and lived up to its billing for many mac fans (not talking about the pc folk).

Right now, the digital music and "more to come" makes up 20% of their bottom line. They still need to worry about the other 80% - and that other 80% means G5 upgrades and other product upgrades. The G5 was announced in June 03 - six months is Dec 03, one year is June 04. Actual product shipped (in qty) Sept 03. - six months is March 04, one year is Sept 04. I would expect to see a product upgrade sometime between now and March (end of). No upgrade by this time would be very disappointing - although I wouldn't expect a loud announcement. If no March announcement, things would look very bad. I doubt there would be a jump from a 2Ghz G5 to 3 Ghz - but you never know with Apple.

Bilba
Feb 9, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Playball
I think y'all are fighting the wrong battle when talking about Apple hardware price points and product positioning. It's not that Apple needs to change the product lines to meet new price points, but rather, Apple nees to change the prices of their products on an ongoing basis to meet the market's new price/performance expectations.

sure, I'm upset that the upgrade cycles are so long (and unpredictable), but what mystifies me is why there isn't periodic discounting during between upgrades? Isn't there a tremendous disincentive to buy any Mac right now, if a purchaser knows that you're buying the price & value proposition that existed when the product was introduced? (i.e. if I'm looking at a 17" iMac, I'm looking at the price performance combination of ?6 months ago. Since I'm not a dummy, I know that performance doubles and prices half every 18 months (Moore's law), so that example iMac should - if not more powerful - be lower priced.

Really, Apple could break the cycle by just loping off $50 every calenday month until the next upgrade & repricing.

(that iMac price/performance would be a whole lot better if it cost $300.)

This does make a lot of sense. Apple cannot compet with the entire P.C industry and no one expects it to. On the other hand, fixing pricing for 6 or more months dosent make sense.

Playball
Feb 9, 2004, 11:12 AM
since this thread started with the article, I'll comment on one thing that occurred to me....

Everyone is rightly excited about Apple's market share in the digital audio, and that they might not make the same mistake they did in the '80s that led them down the path to <5% of the current market.

Unfortunately, the news isn't all good. Did you see the reported market shares in the article? (70% share of downloaded music, 30% share of players.)

While this is good at this moment, I can't see how Apple can continue to fight gravity for much longer. Since Apple's music format is closed, I really don't see how the share of downloads won't over the long term gravitate to a share similar to their share of the player marker (i.e. 30%).

The other bad news is that I'd expect Apple's share of the player market will fall as well for 2 reasons:

1) as the market matures, more products will compete on price (not Apple's forte), and so while unit shipments may rise, share will fall as Apple is undercut for below.

2) Apple isn't a consumer products company, so I can't believe that they'll ever offer enough different product/price/performance combinations to meet the market. (For example, look at Sony's range of Walkman products (analog audio) - they alone sell 6 different ones, which is what it will eventually take to compete in digital audio.digital cameras. The market for portable analog audio isn't one served by binary value propositions, and neither will digital audio.

So, I'd have to say that

Playball
Feb 9, 2004, 11:13 AM
since this thread started with the article, I'll comment on one thing that occurred to me....

Everyone is rightly excited about Apple's market share in the digital audio, and that they might not make the same mistake they did in the '80s that led them down the path to <5% of the current market.

Unfortunately, the news isn't all good. Did you see the reported market shares in the article? (70% share of downloaded music, 30% share of players.)

While this is good at this moment, I can't see how Apple can continue to fight gravity for much longer. Since Apple's music format is closed, I really don't see how the share of downloads won't over the long term gravitate to a share similar to their share of the player marker (i.e. 30%).

The other bad news is that I'd expect Apple's share of the player market will fall as well for 2 reasons:

1) as the market matures, more products will compete on price (not Apple's forte), and so while unit shipments may rise, share will fall as Apple is undercut for below.

2) Apple isn't a consumer products company, so I can't believe that they'll ever offer enough different product/price/performance combinations to meet the market. (For example, look at Sony's range of Walkman products (analog audio) - they alone sell 6 different ones, which is what it will eventually take to compete in digital audio.digital cameras. The market for portable analog audio isn't one served by binary value propositions, and neither will digital audio.

So, I'd have to say that this is one more reason Apple needs to refocus on great computers, as to be distracted by the digital audio market will likely prove frustrating.

deejemon
Feb 9, 2004, 11:43 AM
*

jedi180
Feb 9, 2004, 12:24 PM
I'm not sure if this has been very well confirmed, but I've heard about the PowerPC 980 coming out within a year from now, and will be dubbed as the G6. Whether this is true or not, I think that Apple should definitely move the G5 chips into the eMacs, iMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks. Though I also think they should do that right NOW. The production cost of the G5 chips is, I've heard, not even as high as the cost of the G4 chips.

Apple can make more of a profit and please more consumers by speeding up the lower end of ther products. Heck, who ever goes into a Gateway store an sees a 900 Mhz laptop!?!??!

jedi180

jocknerd
Feb 9, 2004, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
[B]im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??[QUOTE]

You obviously haven't used a PC have you? Sit down on an iMac for 20 minutes and then a new PC and see which one is more painful to use because its so slow.

Do you really think the average consumer (by your definition of one) even needs a Mac at all?

I'm what you would call a prosumer. I've got an iBook and a PC at home running an Athlon 1.4ghz processor. I'm looking to replace it with a Mac this year. What are my choices? I could get an iMac or a PowerMac G5. I talked my mother into an iMac last year. She got the 1.0ghz 17". I never realized how SLOW it actually was. I thought it would run circles around my iBook, but it doesn't.

I tried to talk my sister into an iMac, but after she used my mom's she said no way. She had me build her a PC with an Athlon 2.2ghz processor. It screams.

So for me, it looks like a G5 PowerMac unless Apple introduces a G5 iMac. Then I might be swayed over to it in order to save a $1000. But I'll probably wind up going with the PowerMac.

Bunzi2k4
Feb 9, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by jocknerd
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
[B]im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??[QUOTE]

You obviously haven't used a PC have you? Sit down on an iMac for 20 minutes and then a new PC and see which one is more painful to use because its so slow.

Do you really think the average consumer (by your definition of one) even needs a Mac at all?

I'm what you would call a prosumer. I've got an iBook and a PC at home running an Athlon 1.4ghz processor. I'm looking to replace it with a Mac this year. What are my choices? I could get an iMac or a PowerMac G5. I talked my mother into an iMac last year. She got the 1.0ghz 17". I never realized how SLOW it actually was. I thought it would run circles around my iBook, but it doesn't.

So for me, it looks like a G5 PowerMac unless Apple introduces a G5 iMac. Then I might be swayed over to it in order to save a $1000. But I'll probably wind up going with the PowerMac.

well my pb 12" 867 seems to be running fine when it comes to word processing, but then again, my laptop is the fastest computer in my family... heck i have the only g4 in my family. i think in general, the macs need to have a big speed bump, they need to be able to compete in speed. when an average person looks at computers, they look at hd space, speed, and price. Apple doesn't really win in any of these contests if you look at the specs (by that i mean comparing a pc at the same price)...

Phobophobia
Feb 9, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Playball

Really, Apple could break the cycle by just loping off $50 every calenday month until the next upgrade & repricing.

(that iMac price/performance would be a whole lot better if it cost $300.)

With wit like that, you could start your own computer manufacturing company!!!

cuneglasus
Feb 9, 2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
huh? i'm tired and confused and grumpy... i do get tired of people moaning about needing a g5 to surf the web... that was my only real point...

But the real point is that Apple must spec and price its consumer items to be competative with the rest of the industry or consumers will look elsewhere.What a minute thats exactly whats happening now.The G4 is dead in the water so the only option is the G5,unless the mythical IBM G4 is real (and ready to go).

Frobozz
Feb 9, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by evilbert420
I have to buy Pro to get the features I want, yet I consider myself a consumer.


Well, you've hit the head of the nail there. You're not a consumer... you're a "prosumer." A prosumer would buy a low end Professional machine. In this case, you'd probably have a 1.8 Ghz G5 PowerMac.

Also, it's important to note that the consumer desktop is a dying computer. Most consumers do not care about adding hard drives or PCI cards. They buy laptops. Not only does Apple's figures show that the laptop is king, but so does independant market research.

An increasingly large number of consumers buy laptops. Today, the figure is almost 50%. Let's face it-- the iMac is nothing more than a non-portable laptop. It has the same limited expandability options as a laptop, but you can't take it with you. In fact, I am suprised that Apple doesn't shake up it's product line:

1) They nuke the eMac and make what is currently the iMac into the low end educational machine. Drop the price to $799 and they'll sell.

2) Create a low end non-monitor-integrated computer. That way I'm not locked into a monitor size/hardware feature deadlock. The resulting line could look like this:

Education:
iMac and iBook

Consumers:
PowerMac Lite (or whatever sounds good) $1299.
iBook

Prosumer/Pro:
PowerMac
PowerBook

cuneglasus
Feb 9, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Phobophobia
1. Consumer machines will NOT be upgradeable. People who upgrade their computer make up a very small percentage of the entire computing market. There is no reason for Apple to make consumer products upgradeable. Apple doesn't get money from parts being bought, the third-party companies do. To reiterate, consumer machines will not be upgradeable. I am not saying that it is impossible that they will every be upgradeable, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. (In other words, no.) If you want upgradeability, get a Powermac--Apple will thank you for it. (Higher profit margin :D )

2.Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS. Although it is definitely the next step for the future, Apple is not going to make a 64-bit OS until AT LEAST 5 years from now. They wouldn't desert customers like that, just trust me.

3. Apple is not going to compete with pricing. Apple doesn't need to compete with Dell, or any other company for that matter, on prices. Although Apple will definitely stride to make a computer that is $100 or so less than the current eMac, they WILL NOT sell a computer for less than $700. Lowering prices has less of a benefit than you think, especially since people who shop mainly by price aren't very loyal customers.

Thank you for your time, I don't want to see any arguments in relation to the above brought up again in this thread.

There is so much sad stuff here I dont know how to start! PC's in the imac price range are upgradeable,look mainly we are going to be talking about a graphics card that is replaceable.Why shouldnt Apple respect its consumer customers enough to give us that? Oh yes,higher profit margins.Lets see,what does that do for Apple.Oh yes,24% decline in imac/emac sales(the only consumer desktops they make,what about choice for the consumer).
Apple will make a 64 bit os.So will microshaft but neither will abandon the 32 bit os for years.Apple is not going to compete with priceing?I fear you may be right.They seem only interested in milking the installed base (customer loyalty-you know,those people who want to be burried with their mac).So what you are saying is Apple is an expensive,marginalized platform for people with money to burn? That isnt the Apple I want to see.

A G5 imac.It's not more than you need,just more than you are used to.

Frobozz
Feb 9, 2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by cuneglasus
But the real point is that Apple must spec and price its consumer items to be competative with the rest of the industry or consumers will look elsewhere.What a minute thats exactly whats happening now.The G4 is dead in the water so the only option is the G5,unless the mythical IBM G4 is real (and ready to go).

No, people are buying laptops because the average consumer does not need more power than a 1.25 Ghz G4. Ask the people who comprised the 44% laptop sales for Apple this quarter.

What people are getting at are kids interested in games, but they don't have cash. Those people want to get into the game cheaply (pun intended) and upgrade as they have the dough. I hear you, brother... but I think the low end G5 PowerMac might be the answer.

Frobozz
Feb 9, 2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by deejemon
I tend to agree with the guy from MacUser UK.

I've had the feeling lately that Apple would rather sell me an iPod (or mini variant) than a new Mac. Lately it's been all about the music and the player and the store, and it's all non-stop.

Quickly, what was the most recently released Macintosh model? How hard did you have to think about it?

Do you realize Apple's US home page currently isn't touting a single Macintosh model? (I'm not counting the iMac in the background of the box for the Pepsi ad, since it's incidental, not something they're hawking.)

I want cool new Macs, not yet-another variation on listening to music.

I know iTunes/iPod/Store are the crossover products, and I know it's doing them a lot of good as far as exposure and product recognition, but Apple should be about Macs at the end of the day. Clearly it's not like they've forgotten about their bread-and-butter products, but it's hard not to wonder what's going on when you get months of endless promotion of their lowest-margin (or near-lowest) products and bupkis on the rest of their stuff.

You make excellent points. And yes, I tend to agree. :-)

cuneglasus
Feb 9, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
No, people are buying laptops because the average consumer does not need more power than a 1.25 Ghz G4. Ask the people who comprised the 44% laptop sales for Apple this quarter.

What people are getting at are kids interested in games, but they don't have cash. Those people want to get into the game cheaply (pun intended) and upgrade as they have the dough. I hear you, brother... but I think the low end G5 PowerMac might be the answer.

People buy laptops because it fits their lifestyle/usage needs,often for school,not because a 1.25 is "more power than they need".It isnt Apples place to tell me what is "good enough" for my needs.That is insulting.It is Apples place to provide the best for the consumer's money and that means competative features and performance.It's not just cpu performance.Apple skimps on memory.hard drive space,and in the imac (not emac) price range,graphics cards.A low end G5 tower might be an answer if it was 400-500 dallors cheaper,but most consumers are not going to give an 1800 dallors box a second thought,when a comparable pc is much cheaper.Thats just the reality of the market.

Dave_B
Feb 9, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by starpolyp
This iMac 500 DVse that im on (3yrs old) is doing fine but, ive been itching for something new. I dont like the specs of the current iMacs and the PM is too big for my area. Something that i can upgrade, but can still fit in my room would be greatly appreciated. I dont care if it is headless, or has an attached LCD, I just want the ability to upgrade the graphics card, etc. The ability to have access the hardrive would be nice.
I'm not buying anything w/o a G5 either. Why spend a ton of money on old technology? I will wait as long as it takes to get a G5. The sooner the better.

I half agree with you. I also have a CRT iMac that's doing fine (with 10.2, 10.3 may need a larger HD), but I'm looking for a new toy and the current range isn't it.

The flat panel iMac is too pricey for, what is for me, a toy and the eMac is too ugly for my front room. I considered an iBook but the entry level model only has a 12" screen and with the 14" option you start getting into the "too much to spend on a toy" department again.

Oh, and any-colour-so-long-as-its-white doesn't say "buy me" in any language I know.

Looking forward to Apple's next brightly-coloured, competitvely priced offering!

evilbert420
Feb 9, 2004, 02:02 PM
" average consumer does not need more power than a 1.25 Ghz G4"

I'm guessing you don't use iDVD or Garageband. :D Last I checked iLife is a consumer product, and my Dual 1Ghz MDD Power Mac is downright pokey. Especially compared to my 1.7Ghz Pentium-M laptop.

jocknerd
Feb 9, 2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz

1) They nuke the eMac and make what is currently the iMac into the low end educational machine. Drop the price to $799 and they'll sell.

2) Create a low end non-monitor-integrated computer. That way I'm not locked into a monitor size/hardware feature deadlock. The resulting line could look like this:

Education:
iMac and iBook

Consumers:
PowerMac Lite (or whatever sounds good) $1299.
iBook

Prosumer/Pro:
PowerMac
PowerBook

Apple can't drop the iMac to $799. It costs too much to manufacture. Therein lies the problem. Its a consumer oriented computer that costs too much to produce. Its a nice design, but it has no market.

I agree that a headless unit with a single G5 could be the consumer level computer Apple needs. Sell it for $1199 or $1299.

Steven1621
Feb 9, 2004, 03:13 PM
the imac line really upsets me. expensive and little options. this is the biggest area for apple to improve.

takao
Feb 9, 2004, 03:22 PM
for me personnaly apple is/was _the_ most consumer focused computer manufacturer... i mean : the ipod is targeted at the consumer but the iMac isn't... it's a good computer (very nice looking) ...but it's "all in one" design is outdated... most computer are sold _without_ LCD/CRT screen...

there is nothing wrong with portables ... they sell more portables here than desktops (emac,imac,powermac: 18.000, ibook,powerbook: 19.000, this are the 62% improved sales compared to last year...)

i think there are some big chances coming for the consumerline this year...keeping the G4 in the same imac for an other year would be a bad idea ..they would have to bump up the specs very high to justify the premium price

billyboy
Feb 9, 2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Centrino laptops are selling quite poorly compared to desktop replacements. People buy bigger numbers - AMD's sucfcessful rating scheme proves it.

The real MHz myth is here, and in every other Mac forum or NG, that somehow the lowly G4 is superior to a much faster clocked P4 or Athlon. As the owner of multiple Macs and PCs I can say this with certainty.


The main point of the MHz myth reference was that the market for all computers sold is shifting favourably towards notebooks, which the world assumes pack less bang than desktops. This aint necessarily so, especially with the Centrino notebooks whose 1.6 MHz I see from reading around are a match for a 2.4GHz PC. This sort of power from a small notebook would be plenty powerful enough for most users.

Intel will be shifting the Centrino type focus from corporate sales, where Centrinos have been successful, onto the consumer side, where they are still struggling against desktiop replacement "portables". This shift will generate lots of publicity aimed at destroying the MHz myth - which Apple have been plagued with for years. If they open enough eyes, this will help Apple no end.

I guess though if you can say in your experience that a 1.6 Centrino notebook is in fact outclassed by a 2.4 Hz desktop replacement, and a Mac doesnt punch well above its weight too, then I would stand corrected and drop the idea that Intel and AMD are heading for good times with Centrino type processors.

I will also have to admit that Apple wont benefit from the deluded PC world's massive propoganda machine soon to be launched.

The funny thing about the MHz thing is, literally nobody has ever asked me how many GHz my sad little G4 powerbook is. They just go wow at what it does and how well it does it. Some people have even gone, How much? That isnt bad.

The average price for a PC sold now is $1275 - the first time it has ever dipped under $1300. Maybe Apple can direct their thoughts at shedding some light on the price myth too.

pgwalsh
Feb 9, 2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by jocknerd
Apple can't drop the iMac to $799. It costs too much to manufacture. Therein lies the problem. Its a consumer oriented computer that costs too much to produce. Its a nice design, but it has no market.

I agree that a headless unit with a single G5 could be the consumer level computer Apple needs. Sell it for $1199 or $1299. Can you give me exact numbers on the cost to produce the iMac or eMac? Does anyone here know the cost of the computers... You may gestimate while compairing retail value products, but Apple is an OEM and they get heavy discounts. So how much does the entire line of Apple computers actually cost? Anyone?

lewdvig
Feb 9, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Can you give me exact numbers on the cost to produce the iMac or eMac? Does anyone here know the cost of the computers... You may gestimate while compairing retail value products, but Apple is an OEM and they get heavy discounts. So how much does the entire line of Apple computers actually cost? Anyone?

The iMac is too fragile for schools. eMac form factor is perfect. Less cables, easy to move, solid and abuse proof. It just needs new guts.

Bill of materials on the 1299 iMac is 550-600. Shipping marketing and other overhead probably push the total to 800-900.

The beautiful neck is very expensive. Ditch the LCD and put the thing in a simple ATX case and it would undercut the Dell machines.

lewdvig
Feb 9, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
I guess though if you can say in your experience that a 1.6 Centrino notebook is in fact outclassed by a 2.4 Hz desktop replacement, and a Mac doesnt punch well above its weight too, then I would stand corrected and drop the idea that Intel and AMD are heading for good times with Centrino type processors.


I don't know how you could possibly get the above from what I wrote.

I said Centrino is not selling well - I explain this as the MHz rating of a PC still being a major factor in people's buying decisions. What I would call desirable Centrino laptops are outsold by a massive margin by clunky fat desknotes.

I said that the fastest G4 is slower than current P4 and Athlons.

lewdvig
Feb 9, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by jocknerd
Apple can't drop the iMac to $799. It costs too much to manufacture. Therein lies the problem. Its a consumer oriented computer that costs too much to produce. Its a nice design, but it has no market.

I agree that a headless unit with a single G5 could be the consumer level computer Apple needs. Sell it for $1199 or $1299.

The key driver of the high price is the nice case and neck.

It would be possible to make a cheaper all in one.

People have proven that they don't pay for cutting edge design. Only a minority does (us).

Spagolli94
Feb 9, 2004, 04:02 PM
People that want to upgrade a video card or add another hard drive are "prosumers" and should go after the entry level G5. People that Apple considers to be average consumers wouldn't dream of opening their computer box to tinker with it.

If an entry level G5 is too much, well, then mayne Apple is not for you. Apple has never marketed much towards bargain hunters and never will. They don't make cheap computers for the masses.

I for one, like it that way. Specs aside, when I am in Comp USA, I am amazed by the overall cheap look and feel of the PC boxes...

Are BMWs the fastest cars in the world? No, most of their models could be easily beaten by a Camaro Z-28. Do they get the best mileage? No. Do they cost twice as much as many other cars that can get you from A-B, more quickly and for less $$? Yes. Do they have a large market share compared to some cheaper brands? No.

Is BMW worried about all this? No. And most their owners aren't either.

Faster, slower, more expensive, cheaper, whatever. What matters is the user experience. That is why I, and the others that make up the 5% market share use and stay loyal to Apple.

I for one, am glad that Apple doesn't build some cheap, POS econo-computer to compete with all the PC boxes... I hope they never do.

Spagolli94
Feb 9, 2004, 04:08 PM
2004 will not be the year of the movie download.

It works for music due to "instant gratification." I can buy/download/burn an album faster than I could order it online, or go to the store.

I can also only buy certain tracks as opposed to the whole album. The quality is also excellent, with only very high end equipment being able to reveal any flaws.

But, with video...

To download and burn a high quality DVD, on par with what you could buy at the store, would take hours. By the time I was done, I could have driven to the store and back 10 times.

If they made the file small enough for a quick download, it would likely be small and compressed... suitable for viewing on a computer monitor only.

Why would I watch a movie at my desk when I have a HDTV with surround sound downstairs???

evilbert420
Feb 9, 2004, 04:17 PM
"If an entry level G5 is too much, well, then mayne Apple is not for you. Apple has never marketed much towards bargain hunters and never will. They don't make cheap computers for the masses."

Really, it's about design too. I happen to really like the iMac design asthetic. The "big shiny metal box" next to a somewhat-mismatched flat screen isn't what I'm looking for.

I understand your point, and that's why I've bought Power Macs in the past. But I'd really like to buy an iMac for our living room, but I stubbornly refuse to buy another G4.

pgwalsh
Feb 9, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Bill of materials on the 1299 iMac is 550-600. Shipping marketing and other overhead probably push the total to 800-900. How do you know the costs? Guessing?

cuneglasus
Feb 9, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Spagolli94
People that want to upgrade a video card or add another hard drive are "prosumers" and should go after the entry level G5. People that Apple considers to be average consumers wouldn't dream of opening their computer box to tinker with it.

If an entry level G5 is too much, well, then mayne Apple is not for you. Apple has never marketed much towards bargain hunters and never will. They don't make cheap computers for the masses.


That smells of eliteism and that doesnt put a dime in Apples pocket.I hear that too much on these boards.No one has said that Apple should make some pos cheapo piece of junk.I only ask for competative specs and performance in my pricerange,whatever that pricerange happens to be.The consumer items Apple offers are extremly poor values.That is why they dont sell.You talk about the user experience.That isnt going to cut it anymore.Your preaching to the choir.XP wont win any awards but it is far beyond the unstable rubbish microsoft used to have.In other words the glory of osX isnt going to sway most buyers when the hardware is so overpriced and underspeced.Yet you say if you cant justify the extra money for one of the "big boy" towers then Maybe Apple isnt for you.Should we exit through the servents entrance?I'm sure Apple really appreciates you shooing customers away.The bottom line is sink or swim.If Apple cant or wont offer competative consumer items then maybe they should just get out of the consumer computer bussiness all together and concentrate on the pro line .

takao
Feb 9, 2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Spagolli94
Are BMWs the fastest cars in the world? No, most of their models could be easily beaten by a Camaro Z-28. Do they get the best mileage? No. Do they cost twice as much as many other cars that can get you from A-B, more quickly and for less $$? Yes. Do they have a large market share compared to some cheaper brands? No.

Is BMW worried about all this? No. And most their owners aren't either.


please no BMW/apple comparisiation.....

BMW/Mercedes has 2 digitmarketshare here (half of all taxis are E-class Mercedes)
does apple have this marketshare anywhere on the world ?...no
does apple has the same market share here in europe which BMW has in amerika ? no

Mercedes is #2 in sold cars here
BMW is #3...

BMW may be premium where you live..but they are in some places on the world pretty average

Apple is premium in the US but where are they pretty average ? ? ?

btw: Ford doesn't offer Mustangs or Camaros here ... in the country were it is allowed to drive as fast as your car can move ... 100mph is average speed and at that speed you get overhauled by mini-vans,jeeps and other 100 HP cars

wiesel
Feb 9, 2004, 04:44 PM
Congradulations on your choice of digital rights management software - after all microsoft are so well known for their security, it wont be long before your giving your movies away.

FREE MOVIES ALL ROUND!!!...... but who is supplying the popcorn?

stoid
Feb 9, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by wiesel
Congradulations on your choice of digital rights management software - after all microsoft are so well known for their security, it wont be long before your giving your movies away.

FREE MOVIES ALL ROUND!!!...... but who is supplying the popcorn?

Uhh, I think you are in the wrong thread.

Try Here ;) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59704)

Daschund
Feb 9, 2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by stoid
I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software!

Exactly. It would be very dumb to have to ship computers with old OS. Either they have a dual OS (32/64) or they will do that only when they have an all G5 line.

Daschund

Daschund
Feb 9, 2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by jocknerd
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
[B]im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??[QUOTE]

You obviously haven't used a PC have you? Sit down on an iMac for 20 minutes and then a new PC and see which one is more painful to use because its so slow.

Do you really think the average consumer (by your definition of one) even needs a Mac at all?

I'm what you would call a prosumer. I've got an iBook and a PC at home running an Athlon 1.4ghz processor. I'm looking to replace it with a Mac this year. What are my choices? I could get an iMac or a PowerMac G5. I talked my mother into an iMac last year. She got the 1.0ghz 17". I never realized how SLOW it actually was. I thought it would run circles around my iBook, but it doesn't.

I tried to talk my sister into an iMac, but after she used my mom's she said no way. She had me build her a PC with an Athlon 2.2ghz processor. It screams.

So for me, it looks like a G5 PowerMac unless Apple introduces a G5 iMac. Then I might be swayed over to it in order to save a $1000. But I'll probably wind up going with the PowerMac.

So you built your sister computer and you want to convince me that you are on the "customer line target"??? Oh, yeah, right... LOL

Daschund

windowsblowsass
Feb 9, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

A 2.53 GHz Dell POS with 15" TFT and the same RAM, HD, Optical and I/O as the iMac is $818 after rebate.
WHAt vis wrong w/ tyou recomending a dell my god your not a true mac user or you wouldnt have ever reccomended winte

windowsblowsass
Feb 9, 2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by takao
p 100mph is average speed and at that speed you get overhauled by mini-vans,jeeps and other 100 HP cars
you just said ford makes camaros ohh my god

windowsblowsass
Feb 9, 2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by lewdvig
The key driver of the high price is the nice case and neck.

It would be possible to make a cheaper all in one.

People have proven that they don't pay for cutting edge design. Only a minority does (us).
all this talk about apple needing a cheaper consumer comp they already do its called the emac

windowsblowsass
Feb 9, 2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by jedi180
I'm not sure if this has been very well confirmed, but I've heard about the PowerPC 980 coming out within a year from now, and will be dubbed as the G6. Whether this is true or not, I think that Apple should definitely move the G5 chips into the eMacs, iMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks. Though I also think they should do that right NOW. The production cost of the G5 chips is, I've heard, not even as high as the cost of the G4 chips.

Apple can make more of a profit and please more consumers by speeding up the lower end of ther products. Heck, who ever goes into a Gateway store an sees a 900 Mhz laptop!?!??!

jedi180 the 980 will not be g6 it will be another rev of g5 more than one chip was used under g4

WM.
Feb 9, 2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
_____________________

Originally posted by lewdvig
Bill of materials on the 1299 iMac is 550-600. Shipping marketing and other overhead probably push the total to 800-900.
_____________________

How do you know the costs? Guessing?
I'm quite curious too. Please do answer the question, lewdvig.

stoid
Feb 9, 2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by windowsblowsass
WHAt vis wrong w/ tyou recomending a dell my god your not a true mac user or you wouldnt have ever reccomended winte

Did you mean to say:
Posted by windowsblowsass (grammar corrected by stoid)
I do not understand your recommendation of a Dell computer over a Mac computer. I do not view you as true a Mac user as I am because you have recommend a computer that uses the Windows operating system.

Based upon your attitude, usage (or lack there of) of punctuation and capitalization, and upon the childish nature of your user name, I would assume that you are 12 years old. Furthermore, you are either a spoiler Windows brat that is trolling and have never touched a Mac, or you are a spoiled Mac brat. I am sorry if I have misjudged you, and you do not fit in this category. If that is so, perhaps you should review your posts and exam ways to make them sound more intelligent and less ridiculous. (For starters, try correct punctuation and capitalization; it goes a long way ;))



I've been using Mac's since our first Apple IIc. We've had that, Classic, LC II, 6320CD, Quicksilver G4, and now I have a 15 inch Aluminum book at college. Both my grade school and high school's used Macs.

I hadn't even touched a PC up until this year (as my college is nearly PC exclusive). Since I am more comfortable on a Mac, I do personal work on a Mac, but I'll admit that PCs are better than Macs at some things, just as Macs are better than PCs at some things. To blanket state that "winte[sic]" are useless is a gross misjudgment.

jocknerd
Feb 9, 2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Daschund
So you built your sister computer and you want to convince me that you are on the "customer line target"??? Oh, yeah, right... LOL

Daschund

Is that so difficult to believe? Just because I use a Mac doesn't mean I'm not capable of building a PC. I've built PC's for about 10 years. I only became a Mac user two years ago. And I can say in the consumer line, Apple doesn't have anything that compares with the speed of a $500 PC. And don't tell me about user experience. It doesn't make up for the price difference.

zupchuck
Feb 9, 2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Daschund
Exactly. It would be very dumb to have to ship computers with old OS. Either they have a dual OS (32/64) or they will do that only when they have an all G5 line.

Daschund

Then why should anyone buy a G5 PowerMac at all? Apple marketed the 64-bit experience right from the beginiing. They should deliver it. Frankly, I paid to have it before the rest of you. I should get it before the rest of you. Buy a luxury car with stuff you can't get in a Chevy, you get the stuff the Chevy don't have. Sometime in the future, the Chevy will have the formerly new stuff. But then the luxury car will have something that the rest don't. It's not being a snob, that's just life.

You pay more, you should get more.

WM.
Feb 9, 2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by zupchuck
Then why should anyone buy a G5 PowerMac at all? Apple marketed the 64-bit experience right from the beginiing. They should deliver it.
They are. Photoshop runs way better on the G5 and you can put more than 2 GB of RAM in it.
Frankly, I paid to have it before the rest of you. I should get it before the rest of you. Buy a luxury car with stuff you can't get in a Chevy, you get the stuff the Chevy don't have. Sometime in the future, the Chevy will have the formerly new stuff. But then the luxury car will have something that the rest don't. It's not being a snob, that's just life.

You pay more, you should get more.
Look, no company--even Apple--would survive obsoleting their computers (OS-wise) less than a year after they were introduced. Ain't gonna happen. If Apple's still making any G4s in 2005 (which is somewhat likely), then I can guarantee you that 10.5 at the very least will run on them--and probably the upgrade after that.

I am fairly sure that one day you will be able to run a true 64-bit OS X on your G5, but it won't be 10.4, and if it comes before 2006 I'll bet you there'll be a version available for G3s and G4s.

WM

MarkCollette
Feb 9, 2004, 08:39 PM
Someone a while ago said that they felt Apple had to do one of two things:
1. Lower prices to reflect low speeds
2. Increase speeds to reflect higher sprices

A lot of people are somehow trying to argue against or for the lower prices. Here's something to keep in mind: when the sale prices is constant, then there is an implicit, continuous price reduction equal to the inflation rate. So, for a $2000 computer, and inflation of 2%, then you are "saving" $40 at the end of the year. I'm not saying that's a lot of money, but just reminding you to factor that in. I personally think that a computer model to drop by 10% over its 6 month life-cycle, to reflect the depreciation rates of technological equipment. Usually this happens at the very end of the life-cycle, to clea channels, etc.

But, I think that the approach of giving higher specs for the higher price, is more in line with what consumers expect from a company like Apple. Part of what's tied their hands is that all the consumer machines are small form factor, or integrated form factor, so they couldn't just release a stripped down G5, or it would have reduced sales of eMac, iMac. Well, they should have bitten the bullet and let the market decide their fate, while having something else that would sell.

I myself bought an old G3 iMac, as my switcher box. Almost immediately I found how annoying it is to not be able to attach a larger monitor to it. Furthermore there's limited expansion, since the USB is 1.1 not 2.0, there's no firewire, and no way to upgrade the CPU or video card or monitor. Ok, I understand that most consumers don't upgrade, so tough luck to me. But, if I had been able to upgrade at least ONE of these things, then that would have been more palatable. And all of the internal expandability issues remain with the current Consumer options. The real reason why I found myself in this position was because of the lack of prosumer options, due to the rigid enforcement of Consumer, Professional divisions. Basically, the only option for a Prosumer is to get a secondhand Professional box. That's just not smart for a company to rely on people buying its products second-hand, instead of selling them what they need directly. And I think the result of that problem here, is that many enthusiests (rumor people, reporters, savvy people who guide others' buying decisions) are prosumers, and so the people who are most vocal are also the most negative about Apple.

- Mark Collette

Bilba
Feb 9, 2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by MarkCollette
Basically, the only option for a Prosumer is to get a secondhand Professional box. That's just not smart for a company to rely on people buying its products second-hand, instead of selling them what they need directly. And I think the result of that problem here, is that many enthusiests (rumor people, reporters, savvy people who guide others' buying decisions) are prosumers, and so the people who are most vocal are also the most negative about Apple.

- Mark Collette

On the other hand, this keeps the value of a used products relatively high. In turn this makes past consumers more likely to upgrade because they know that they can get good $ for their old machine, and that it will be possible to sell the new one when its time come.

One last factor that should be brought into the discussion is that buyers of models that are sold for long period of time usually get a better product. Example: current buyers of the 15" powerbook no longer experience whitespots/letch issues. While the price/spec did not change, there are revisions to the product, and current buyers take advantage of them. This can be viewed as a "discount".

zupchuck
Feb 9, 2004, 09:54 PM
I guess I'm missing something fundamental. It wouldn't be the first time. :) But, why shouldn't Apple have a 64-bit OS before all of their machines are 64-bit capable? Windows will have one and it will run on 64-bit machines. If you don't have a 64-bit machine, buy one if it fits your means. Or, use the 32-bit version of the OS. It's like saying that current Porsche owners can't drive fast until all the Audis and VWs have similarly capable engines and tires. Yes, some apps run faster on the G5 already. That's great! I'm sure if a true 64-bit OS X comes out, a 32-bit version will be there.

I suspect this arguement will be somewhat moot, though. By the time a 64-bit OS X is out, we'll have faster G5s and iMacs (and PBs?) will have slower versions of them. Maybe even an eMac.

in_my_head
Feb 9, 2004, 10:04 PM
as a MAC 'newbie' I am amazed at how many self professed long time users have so little patience with what appears to an ongoing refrain that Steve Jobs isn't cranking out the upgrades fast enough (I.E. the iMac).....here's a tip from someone who has just come in from the 'PC cold.'....the updates are out there only its ALL in the software as in iLife '04 with garageband......point is Steve-0 (as I see he affectionately called) is giving us all the ability to go and knock our selves out from the creativity side of things...that's what software is all about....so you want an 'upgrade'?...rip some original material in garageband, drop into iTunes, slam it onto an iDVD as background music for the last vaca in Hawaii and there you go...as I see it, the 'upgrades' are endless as apposed to not there 'quick enough'.......just an 'Observation'.......rock on.....in_my_head.........'newbie'...:-)........

MarkCollette
Feb 9, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by in_my_head
...the updates are out there only its ALL in the software...


The problem is when you need a new machine to be able to run all that new software as fast as you would like, and the price/performance ratio of available options is insufficient.

You see, all of the (3) computers that I use are all <= 400 MHz, which is mostly sufficient for what I need on a daily basis. But, I've seen all the cool audio, video and gaming things that people with modern machines can do, and so I really want to upgrade so that I can do all of that too. So, when 2GHz is in consumer, or in second-hand professional, machines, then I will upgrade. With dual 2GHz in the pro line for months and months, there's been no excuse (from my point of view) for the lack of single 2 GHz in some consumer offering. Although, I will never buy an all-in-one machine for myself again, but perhaps for my girlfriend.

- Mark Collette

MarkCollette
Feb 9, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by zupchuck
I guess I'm missing something fundamental. It wouldn't be the first time. :) But, why shouldn't Apple have a 64-bit OS before all of their machines are 64-bit capable? Windows will have one and it will run on 64-bit machines. If you don't have a 64-bit machine, buy one if it fits your means. Or, use the 32-bit version of the OS. It's like saying that current Porsche owners can't drive fast until all the Audis and VWs have similarly capable engines and tires. Yes, some apps run faster on the G5 already. That's great! I'm sure if a true 64-bit OS X comes out, a 32-bit version will be there.


If there was a 32 and a 64 bit version of the same OS, having the same features, except that the 64 bit one provided access to more memory, then that would be a great migration path for Apple to take. I think what people are worried about is a scenario like Mac OS X 10.3 being the last version to support 32 bit stuff, and from then on everything is only for 64 bit hardware, which would then leave everyone with old stuff in the cold. Basically, Mac OS X 10.3 supports all "modern" G3 and up systems, which means hardware from over 6 years ago can run all current software. It would suck to go from that, to a situation where only machines from the last 6 months could run the newest OS.

So, as long as the 64 bit support is in the form of operating system extensions, and not some hard requirement, then I think people will be happy.

- Mark Collette

in_my_head
Feb 9, 2004, 10:46 PM
point well taken in that as the more the software can crunch, rip, shred, manage, maniplulate, store data, and THAT data is more and more in the form of digital audio-video stream the fact is that the hardware just needs more horsepower......it's called 'progress'.....look at it this way: you can still fly coast to coast in a sinlge prop gas engine plane for minimal cost, or you could hop into a 20th century invention (jet) and get there in 1/20 the time....albeit 20X the cost...but hey, if you're all about what's going on where you're going (I.E. software app's) then the higher cost is an unfortunate byproduct......of course you can send your girlfriend on the crop duster to L.A. while you zip there in a 747 in 6 hours...:-)....again, the cost side of the equation is well taken, but lucky for us 'users' it's the one part of technology that is ALWAYS in decline......:-).....

WM.
Feb 9, 2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by zupchuck
I guess I'm missing something fundamental. It wouldn't be the first time. :) But, why shouldn't Apple have a 64-bit OS before all of their machines are 64-bit capable? Windows will have one and it will run on 64-bit machines. If you don't have a 64-bit machine, buy one if it fits your means. Or, use the 32-bit version of the OS. It's like saying that current Porsche owners can't drive fast until all the Audis and VWs have similarly capable engines and tires. Yes, some apps run faster on the G5 already. That's great! I'm sure if a true 64-bit OS X comes out, a 32-bit version will be there.
Right. IMHO that's what will happen. I, at least, was responding to the people who (as Mark said) were thinking that 10.3 would be the last 32-bit-compatible OS. It seemed like you were agreeing with them, since you were disagreeing with someone who disagreed with them...or something. I think you're right, we'll see a 64-bit(-optimized) OS alongside a 32-bit one for quite some time, maybe even starting with 10.4...

WM

uberman42
Feb 10, 2004, 01:57 AM
looking at all these posts makes me feel like this is 2001-2002, when people went ape poo when Apple released a Powermac G4 "speed increase". forget this...What i am interested in is what will apple do in regards with the iSight CCD (or higher mega-pixel ccd from same supplier), FW800, and the tiny 4 GB storage HD. Think Sanyo Xacti (www.sanyo-dsc.com) but the ability to store Mpeg4 in a HD or offload pixs and video into your ipod. I think it would be the first consumer FW800 device. and it would complement your iPod most beautifully.

takao
Feb 10, 2004, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Bilba
One last factor that should be brought into the discussion is that buyers of models that are sold for long period of time usually get a better product. Example: current buyers of the 15" powerbook no longer experience whitespots/letch issues. While the price/spec did not change, there are revisions to the product, and current buyers take advantage of them. This can be viewed as a "discount".

i don't call that a 'discount' ...other companies give those customers with defective products some bonus things because of the problems they had with their bad product...

bringing a product to the point "it should have been from the start" without charging money is normal... : VW orderd back 1/2 Million !! Polos and exchanced parts which were defectiv.. for free, Mercedes orderd back back their whole brand new E-Class and exchanged half of the electric system..for free
apple isn't offering exchange of ipod-battery in europe...you have to do it on your own

rant mode: ON
the thing with the 'prosumers' is perhaps the thing apple is missing at the point... most prosumers don't like to buy 'used' computers (me included) -> so apple only offers the 'low end' powermacs and those aren't really in the "prosumer price class" with 2050-2150$ as starting price for the 1,6 ghz modell

refurbished macs ? only 12 hours on wednesday for credit card owners... then there are hardly any pro towers available most of the times no G5 at all ...
rant mode: OFF

portables: no problem here..they're fine even without a G5 in the pro modell and have very good value compared tp PC notebooks

desktop: need lots of work. period.

craigiest
Feb 10, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by evilbert420


Really, it's about design too. I happen to really like the iMac design asthetic. The "big shiny metal box" next to a somewhat-mismatched flat screen isn't what I'm looking for.

I understand your point, and that's why I've bought Power Macs in the past. But I'd really like to buy an iMac for our living room, but I stubbornly refuse to buy another G4.

I concur. I want performance, but that doesn't mean I need empty space for upgrading. Give me a tight box that's packed in the first place. My iMac sits on my coffee table in my small apartment. I'm not interested in a headless iMac, and an enormous tower with a stationary LCD screen. My computer doesn't sit over on a desk, a tool I go over to when I need it; it's integrated in my life. I use it in the midst of conversation. It's my TV, dvd player, jukebox, plugged into surround sound. Just because I want to be able to really use garageband doesn't mean I want to accept the terribly incovenient packaging of a tower. It's too big to saw off the legs of the coffee table and support the one end with the tower. Why does form factor have to be tied to specs? Why not have a 23-inch G5 iMac with FW800, USB2, digital audio out, and a faster 250GB HD?

doogle
Feb 10, 2004, 06:22 PM
woohah! Give those fingers a rest!

To emphasise the point of music videos. I think we are less likely to see movies on ipods but more likely to see music videos. They are smaller and "part of the package" of modern music (see MTV). Combining them into iTMS and the legal issues would have to be simpler than making deals with film production companies.

I think people would watch them more than once. I know of a number of video clips I would like to have and to easily access thru the ipod interface.

Let Gates have boring old disney formulaic american mythic rubbish - the kids want new in your face FAST content.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 10, 2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by doogle
woohah! Give those fingers a rest!

To emphasise the point of music videos. I think we are less likely to see movies on ipods but more likely to see music videos. They are smaller and "part of the package" of modern music (see MTV). Combining them into iTMS and the legal issues would have to be simpler than making deals with film production companies.

I think people would watch them more than once. I know of a number of video clips I would like to have and to easily access thru the ipod interface.

Let Gates have boring old disney formulaic american mythic rubbish - the kids want new in your face FAST content.

Per your suggestion I watched MTV. I didn't see any music videos though. Maybe I should give them a few more hours.

Seriously, what would make sense is something the size of a portable DVD player with a 160 GB drive so you could store you could take 10 plus movies with your with out carrying any DVD's. But no one really wants to watch a movie (or even a music video) on a two inch screen.

doogle
Feb 10, 2004, 11:25 PM
yes you are right - I guess I am including (deluding) that some sort of device like the guy described above would be on the cards. Watching a video on a current ipod screen would be a waste of time....but some thought it ridiculous to use a numeric keypad for typing (mobile phone).

What is better to say , perhaps, is that I can see a market for viewing music videos on a handheld device but not movies.

(Now if the next ipod had embedded OSX on the chip, had a 40gig hard drive and a usb port to connect a keyboard and a video signal via firewire to connect to a monitor/TV we would have a real portable computer and no need for a portable video player)

windcedar
Mar 23, 2004, 02:09 PM
The only thing that I hate about QuickTime is that it doesn't go full screen. I have to use MPlayer to view full screen. Why didn't they put a full screen feature in Quicktime? Do they think that people like watching movies with a window bordering it? At least they didn't do it with DVD player....
-ko

You can add full-screen functionality to QuickTime Basic with a script you can get here:
http://www.xvsxp.com/scriptability/applescript/

GFLPraxis
Mar 23, 2004, 06:20 PM
I don't think OS 11 is going to come out until around the time Longhorn does. If it comes out any sooner, it will not be 64-bit.

After all, noticed that only last year Apple stopped selling G3 computers, despite having had the G4 for years.

I would expect that we'll get PowerBook G5's as soon as IBM can shrink them enough, and faster iBook G4's. Then it will be as before- instead of iBook = G3 and PowerBook = G4, it will be iBook = G4 and PB = G5. Then the eMac and iMac will also be upgraded to G5's.

I doubt we will see a 64-bit only Mac OS until every computer in Apple's line has been G5 for at least 6 months.

in_my_head
Mar 23, 2004, 06:38 PM
You can add full-screen functionality to QuickTime Basic with a script you can get here:
http://www.xvsxp.com/scriptability/applescript/

in_my_head
Mar 23, 2004, 06:41 PM
You can add full-screen functionality to QuickTime Basic with a script you can get here:
http://www.xvsxp.com/scriptability/applescript/

that would be a great feature in Quick Time to see it full screen, or even somewhat larger than what is currently available. Is this a thrid party software upgrade, or is it Apple?. I'm assumimng third party or else it would available as an add on in Quick Time Pro. Can anyone comment on this. Has anyone else seen/ used/ installed it?......

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 11:20 AM
that would be a great feature in Quick Time to see it full screen, or even somewhat larger than what is currently available. Is this a thrid party software upgrade, or is it Apple?. I'm assumimng third party or else it would available as an add on in Quick Time Pro. Can anyone comment on this. Has anyone else seen/ used/ installed it?......

Forgive me if I'm misreading this post (late night of working + sick child), but surely you haven't missed the Movie menu options, which clearly include "Double Size" and "Full Screen" options. This script merely enables the use of Full Screen mode in non-Pro versions. I've got the Pro version, so I can't tell you if it works or not (but I assume it does).