Hve you noticed how while PC mnufacturers refresh their main hardware lines frequently, Apple tend to do it every 6-7 months? This is not a good thing for Apple or it's users.
For users it means that making a buying decision is more risky. For example I could buy an iMac now and find that on 6th Jan a much more powerful machine is available for much less money (witness the recent improvements and price cuts to powerbooks). So what? You might ask, PCs also get new features, things will always be more powerful in future. The difference with PCs is that because there are frequent updates to machines and it's usually clear when a new piece of hardware (such as a graphics card) is going to be available I can buy safe in the knowledge my machine won't be replaced in a week by a much better model.
For Apple this is bad too. It leads to shortages of new products followed by a slump in sales as new products are anticipated. Ever seen a new product at MacWorld only to find it has a 6+ week lead time? This cannot be good for Apple's profitability or its dealers. It generates bad feeling towards Apple from loyal users who buy a new machine only to find a significantly better machine is now available for the same or less money. In short it isn't good for anyone.
So why do Apple do it? From a marketing point of view big splash launches generate more publicity and media interest than minor product updates. This is obviously important to Apple. So is there not a middle way? I believe there is and think Apple have been moving in the right direction. For totally new products such as the launch of the new iMac early in 2002 or the iPod it makes sense to do it infrequently at a big show and with a big splash. However updates to existing products should take place more often to ensure users get the best machines they can and that Apple's sales are more even. I think we should and will eventually see updates to the main hardware lines such as the PowerMac and iBook at least every 3 months with occassional big launches for things like a new processor line. In the long run this is better for us and better for Apple.
For users it means that making a buying decision is more risky. For example I could buy an iMac now and find that on 6th Jan a much more powerful machine is available for much less money (witness the recent improvements and price cuts to powerbooks). So what? You might ask, PCs also get new features, things will always be more powerful in future. The difference with PCs is that because there are frequent updates to machines and it's usually clear when a new piece of hardware (such as a graphics card) is going to be available I can buy safe in the knowledge my machine won't be replaced in a week by a much better model.
For Apple this is bad too. It leads to shortages of new products followed by a slump in sales as new products are anticipated. Ever seen a new product at MacWorld only to find it has a 6+ week lead time? This cannot be good for Apple's profitability or its dealers. It generates bad feeling towards Apple from loyal users who buy a new machine only to find a significantly better machine is now available for the same or less money. In short it isn't good for anyone.
So why do Apple do it? From a marketing point of view big splash launches generate more publicity and media interest than minor product updates. This is obviously important to Apple. So is there not a middle way? I believe there is and think Apple have been moving in the right direction. For totally new products such as the launch of the new iMac early in 2002 or the iPod it makes sense to do it infrequently at a big show and with a big splash. However updates to existing products should take place more often to ensure users get the best machines they can and that Apple's sales are more even. I think we should and will eventually see updates to the main hardware lines such as the PowerMac and iBook at least every 3 months with occassional big launches for things like a new processor line. In the long run this is better for us and better for Apple.
