Apple Mac Sales Flat in November

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm comparing 'Apple' to Mercedes. Not Mac Mini.

And 'serious help'? Really? Wow.

I might buy the comparison of OS X to Windows or Linux, but Apple's hardware is overpriced for what you get (and my implied point is that the Mac Mini was a poor performer on day 1; it's just SAD now for the price). And now that it's really just clone hardware in a pretty case (and worse yet desktops using slower laptop parts) it's even worse than in the past. This is my major beef with Apple. They need a competitive desktop machine. They need a midrange mini-tower to compete with machines from Dell and the like...something in the $800-1200 range, really with performance at a minimum level of the top of the line custom 24" iMac (with a real GPU; not the laptop stuff). Other than the inclusion of the monitor, the low-end iMacs should be selling at the $600 point and the current Mac-Mini should be $299 considering its utter crap hardware.

OS X may be worth a premium, but not THAT much of a premium. It's why I'd rather have the option of buying the OS separate and putting my own hardware together like you can with any Windows or Linux machine (short of having to use potentially unstable (because Apple tries to make them unstable) hacks.

 

[akm3]

I might buy the comparison of OS X to Windows or Linux, but Apple's hardware is overpriced for what you get (and my implied point is that the Mac Mini was a poor performer on day 1; it's just SAD now for the price). And now that it's really just clone hardware in a pretty case (and worse yet desktops using slower laptop parts) it's even worse than in the past. This is my major beef with Apple. They need a competitive desktop machine. They need a midrange mini-tower to compete with machines from Dell and the like...something in the $800-1200 range, really with performance at a minimum level of the top of the line custom 24" iMac (with a real GPU; not the laptop stuff). Other than the inclusion of the monitor, the low-end iMacs should be selling at the $600 point and the current Mac-Mini should be $299 considering its utter crap hardware.

OS X may be worth a premium, but not THAT much of a premium. It's why I'd rather have the option of buying the OS separate and putting my own hardware together like you can with any Windows or Linux machine (short of having to use potentially unstable (because Apple tries to make them unstable) hacks.

Exactly, Mercedes is overpriced, spec for spec, for what you get also. As is BMW, Audi, Acura, etc. Why buy one of those over priced luxury cars when any $8,000 Kia will get you from Point A to Point B? But don't go to Mercedes and yell at them for not making an $8,000 car - they are Mercedes. And, Mercedes drivers are OK with that, because Mercedes are cool and the driving experience is much more comfortable.

 

[Eraserhead]

Exactly, Mercedes is overpriced, spec for spec, for what you get also. As is BMW, Audi, Acura, etc. Why buy one of those over priced luxury cars when any $8,000 Kia will get you from Point A to Point B? But don't go to Mercedes and yell at them for not making an $8,000 car - they are Mercedes. And, Mercedes drivers are OK with that, because Mercedes are cool and the driving experience is much more comfortable.

And these days Mercedes aren't even good quality either...

 

[OllyW]

And these days Mercedes aren't even good quality either...

I've heard some people say the same about Apple.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

I might buy the comparison of OS X to Windows or Linux, but Apple's hardware is overpriced for what you get (and my implied point is that the Mac Mini was a poor performer on day 1; it's just SAD now for the price). And now that it's really just clone hardware in a pretty case (and worse yet desktops using slower laptop parts) it's even worse than in the past. This is my major beef with Apple. They need a competitive desktop machine. They need a midrange mini-tower to compete with machines from Dell and the like...something in the $800-1200 range, really with performance at a minimum level of the top of the line custom 24" iMac (with a real GPU; not the laptop stuff). Other than the inclusion of the monitor, the low-end iMacs should be selling at the $600 point and the current Mac-Mini should be $299 considering its utter crap hardware.

OS X may be worth a premium, but not THAT much of a premium. .

Absolutely spot on!

 

[BenRoethig]

I might buy the comparison of OS X to Windows or Linux, but Apple's hardware is overpriced for what you get (and my implied point is that the Mac Mini was a poor performer on day 1; it's just SAD now for the price). And now that it's really just clone hardware in a pretty case (and worse yet desktops using slower laptop parts) it's even worse than in the past. This is my major beef with Apple. They need a competitive desktop machine. They need a midrange mini-tower to compete with machines from Dell and the like...something in the $800-1200 range, really with performance at a minimum level of the top of the line custom 24" iMac (with a real GPU; not the laptop stuff). Other than the inclusion of the monitor, the low-end iMacs should be selling at the $600 point and the current Mac-Mini should be $299 considering its utter crap hardware.

You have a point, but your off on your price points by about $200. The mobile hardware isn't cheap. The Mini is such a bad deal because, well its basically stuck in time, three years back. If they had ever bothered to update it in a reasonable time frame and with the same hardware as the Macbook, it wouldn't be that bad.

Personally, I'd like to see everything put back roughly the way it was a couple years ago.

Mac Mini $499, $699
iMac $899 IG, $1299 20", $1599 24", $1999 high end graphics
Mac Pro i7 920 (940 BTO) $1499-$1699
Mac Pro Xeon $1999

13" Macbook entry $999
13" Macbook $1299
15" Macbook $1499 (1280x800 resolution, same specs as $1299 Macbook)
13" Macbook Pro $1699 (9500GS or 9600GS GPU replaces $1599 Macbook)
15" Macbook Pro $1999, $2499
17" Macbook Pro $2799
13" Macbook Air $1799, $1299

Difference between Macbook Pro and Macbook: higher resolution screen and expresscard slot in 15" model, backlit keyboard, dedicated graphics, faster CPU. For those saying I've added a bunch of models, I've added exactly three: The low end iMac, the low end PowerMac, and the 15" Macbook and deleted one in the iMac line. The 13" Macbook Pro is direct replacement for the higher Macbook.

OS X may be worth a premium, but not THAT much of a premium. It's why I'd rather have the option of buying the OS separate and putting my own hardware together like you can with any Windows or Linux machine (short of having to use potentially unstable (because Apple tries to make them unstable) hacks.

I would say its worth a pretty large premium. Not buy a workstation to get a desktop premium, but $300 or so over similar windows configuration.

I've heard some people say the same about Apple.

You know the old adage they sure don't make them like they used to, unfortunately it applies to macs these days.

 

[jackfrost123]

And these days Mercedes aren't even good quality either...

Apple can now very well merit that Steve-o comparison to mercedes.

 

[Tosser]

Apple can now very well merit that Steve-o comparison to mercedes.

"well, they're aluminium, and we all know how strong alu is – it's a metal!" ...

 

[Eraserhead]

You know the old adage they sure don't make them like they used to, unfortunately it applies to macs these days.

That is true, they are more reliable now.

The only bad batch were the initial Core Duo Macs but otherwise they've had far less recalls than they used to. iMac G5, iBook G3 and more had serious issues.

 

[Tosser]

That is true, they are more reliable now.

The only bad batch were the initial Core Duo Macs but otherwise they've had far less recalls than they used to. iMac G5, iBook G3 and more had serious issues.

In that case, there were no problems with the Airbook 1.0 whatsoever, but people still had to play around with voltages for the CPU and fan speeds in order to not have a core shutdown when watching videos, video chatting or the like.

I'm sorry, but the idea that one should only count recalls as problems is pure idiocy.

 

[takao]

if mercedes was in any way similar to apple's desktop line up they would be selling a cabrio without a roof, the Actros and the Smart

 

[macrumorino]

Dell and HP are companies I'd call the "McDonalds and Burger King of computers".

Then Apple is the KFC of computers, but you have to pay extra because the fried chicken is glossy.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

if mercedes was in any way similar to apple's desktop line up they would be selling a cabrio without a roof, the Actros and the Smart

I think Apple is more like Toyota. They're NEVER on sale so you always pay more and can't get cheap financing; they're more stable than a Windows based machine and get better gas mileage (better use of hardware with the OS), but they lack power for the dollar and while well appointed (nice looking designs), they're mostly more or less the same (lackluster laptop parts). While GM or Chrysler or Ford might lack reliability and some of their cars lack as good of gas milage, if you want a Mustang, Viper or Corvette, you do NOT go to Toyota.

I suppose the Mac Pro doesn't quite fit the model since it is their version of a Corvette (more like Lexus then I suppose), but like a Lexus, it's more cachet than usability. Mac Pros are nice, but they're workstations, not high-end consumer machines. And low-end, mid-priced expandable and high-end CONSUMER desktops is where Apple is sorely lacking. Apple is all laptop and all-in-ones. The problem is the rest of the world doesn't LIKE all-in-ones. It's hard to say if Mac users like them that much either given Apple doesn't offer any other choices in the $1000-2000 price range. How can you make a case for an iMac's overall sales if there is NO ALTERNATIVE to pick from? You cannot. OS X is what drives iMac sales, not the design, which sounds nice until you realize your pretty clean desk surface needs loads of external boxes for backups, etc. because there is no internal expansion what-so-ever and you cannot play the latest whiz-bang games because the laptop GPU isn't up to the task when any PC in that price range could have 2-4x the graphics performance using two SLI based gaming cards.

Apple needs to get its desktop game together. I'd rather see a redesigned 'cube' again (one that can use performance parts) that still looks pretty but has some power and expansion room than endless glossy flat screens with no muscle in them. The Mac Pro case is OK by me for a mid-range based option (a little large, but that doesn't bother me; my desk has a built-in holder for large or small towers), but $2700 8-core Xenons is not a consumer friendly price range nor is it necessary. How about a 4-core Core 2 Duo $1800 version of the Mac Pro tower with a gaming friendly card, 2 hard drives (Time Machine ready) and 4 gigs of ram? THAT would sell like hot cakes, IMO. A pre-configured Windows/Fusion (or Parallels) option to maximize gaming options would be even better. And for goodness sake, start offering SLI hardware/software support. There is no reason OS X needs to be a POS when it comes to gaming. Apple has like $23 BILLION in cold hard cash (they could have single-handedly bailed out the entire auto industry) and they can't hire a few dozen extra people to shore up the areas where OS X lags? OpenCL is nice, but if your hardware options don't support it, what's the point?

 

[jackfrost123]

Then Apple is the KFC of computers, but you have to pay extra because the fried chicken is glossy.

hehehehe

In that case, there were no problems with the Airbook 1.0 whatsoever, but people still had to play around with voltages for the CPU and fan speeds in order to not have a core shutdown when watching videos, video chatting or the like.

I'm sorry, but the idea that one should only count recalls as problems is pure idiocy.

Exactly.

 

[DakotaGuy]

And cutting edge is two hyphenated words to content creators: BLU-RAY. Playing, editing, and authoring.

It's way beyond time. A year past time. At least. The Apple of five years ago would have done it the middle of last year as soon as the war was over.

Or become the "Lloyd's" of the new millenium (one of the top transistor radio manufacturers in the 60's, long since defunct.)

iCrap can only get you by for so long. Now you have to service folks who have money: Content creators. Content creators who have to deliver that content with BLU-RAY.

And not so long between updates on the high-ticket items! People with money read this website and the "When To Buy" list!

I honestly think that Apple feels optical media is a thing of the past. I would consider upgrading my iMac if they added a Blu-ray burner, however until then I don't see any point since my Core Duo is fast enough for any task I throw at it.

I think Apple is more like Toyota. They're NEVER on sale so you always pay more and can't get cheap financing; they're more stable than a Windows based machine and get better gas mileage (better use of hardware with the OS), but they lack power for the dollar and while well appointed (nice looking designs), they're mostly more or less the same (lackluster laptop parts). While GM or Chrysler or Ford might lack reliability and some of their cars lack as good of gas milage, if you want a Mustang, Viper or Corvette, you do NOT go to Toyota.

I suppose the Mac Pro doesn't quite fit the model since it is their version of a Corvette (more like Lexus then I suppose), but like a Lexus, it's more cachet than usability. Mac Pros are nice, but they're workstations, not high-end consumer machines. And low-end, mid-priced expandable and high-end CONSUMER desktops is where Apple is sorely lacking. Apple is all laptop and all-in-ones. The problem is the rest of the world doesn't LIKE all-in-ones. It's hard to say if Mac users like them that much either given Apple doesn't offer any other choices in the $1000-2000 price range. How can you make a case for an iMac's overall sales if there is NO ALTERNATIVE to pick from? You cannot. OS X is what drives iMac sales, not the design, which sounds nice until you realize your pretty clean desk surface needs loads of external boxes for backups, etc. because there is no internal expansion what-so-ever and you cannot play the latest whiz-bang games because the laptop GPU isn't up to the task when any PC in that price range could have 2-4x the graphics performance using two SLI based gaming cards.

Apple needs to get its desktop game together. I'd rather see a redesigned 'cube' again (one that can use performance parts) that still looks pretty but has some power and expansion room than endless glossy flat screens with no muscle in them. The Mac Pro case is OK by me for a mid-range based option (a little large, but that doesn't bother me; my desk has a built-in holder for large or small towers), but $2700 8-core Xenons is not a consumer friendly price range nor is it necessary. How about a 4-core Core 2 Duo $1800 version of the Mac Pro tower with a gaming friendly card, 2 hard drives (Time Machine ready) and 4 gigs of ram? THAT would sell like hot cakes, IMO. A pre-configured Windows/Fusion (or Parallels) option to maximize gaming options would be even better. And for goodness sake, start offering SLI hardware/software support. There is no reason OS X needs to be a POS when it comes to gaming. Apple has like $23 BILLION in cold hard cash (they could have single-handedly bailed out the entire auto industry) and they can't hire a few dozen extra people to shore up the areas where OS X lags? OpenCL is nice, but if your hardware options don't support it, what's the point?

Apparently you never saw the "Saved by Zero" Toyota TV commercials that were running non-stop last month. Toyota is having the same sales problems as everyone else right now. They are leasing acres and acres of land in California to hold cars that are being shipped over, but not being bought by dealers. You would have no problems getting a "great deal" on a Toyota right now.

 

[Eraserhead]

In that case, there were no problems with the Airbook 1.0 whatsoever, but people still had to play around with voltages for the CPU and fan speeds in order to not have a core shutdown when watching videos, video chatting or the like.

I'm sorry, but the idea that one should only count recalls as problems is pure idiocy.

Ah, I didnt know about the Air, though I assume all other Intel Macs aside from the initial Core Duos have been OK.

 

[Tosser]

Ah, I didnt know about the Air, though I assume all other Intel Macs aside from the initial Core Duos have been OK.

At least with regards t core shutdowns. However, it was an example, and there have been problems with quite a lot of the other laptops – all without recalls and most without even Apple acknowledging them. One cannot deduce the amount of problems with the amount of recalls directly. That is simply just bad deduction.

Let's name but a few which has resulted in no recalls: Dead batteries from one day to another, sudden shutdown syndrome (I can't remember if we had gone core duo by that time, but google it), crooked keys, white stripes, weird touch pad problems, "bendy" computers that wouldn't sit flat on a table, crooked screens, sloppy hinges, graphics card prone to die, and on and on.

Neither of those things resulted in recalls – frankly, the only thing you can use the recalls for is to put them up against the reported problems and from that see how likely a company is to take their customers seriously. Apple, by that standard, really doesn't do recalls, unless they can get Sony or some other competitor to pay for it (world wide battery recalls a few years back), or if it's some very small thing like that iPhone/iPod compact adaptor.

But, as it stands, recalls are a piss poor measure of build quality. If for nothing else, any company really tries to not do it unless it's absolutely necessary. And Apple is one of those companies that think that almost any problem is too small for such a thing, unless a) someone else pays for it, or b) they have to by law.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apparently you never saw the "Saved by Zero" Toyota TV commercials that were running non-stop last month. Toyota is having the same sales problems as everyone else right now. They are leasing acres and acres of land in California to hold cars that are being shipped over, but not being bought by dealers. You would have no problems getting a "great deal" on a Toyota right now.

No, I live in a GM plant area. We rarely see Toyota commercials. Besides, I don't want a Toyota. They're boring. I drive a Subaru WRX. If I could get a hefty discount on a new WRX STI, I'd think about buying a new car, but those seem to have gone UP in price this past year, not down and I don't see any big discounts being advertised for them locally, despite a great Subaru dealer nearby. I do see some discounts for the Forester and Outback, but they're more workhorses, not fun cars.

The WRX is more of a "Linux" car anyway. It has thousands of after-market parts to tinker with the thing. Apple doesn't like tinkering what-so-ever.

 

[Eric S.]

Apparently you never saw the "Saved by Zero" Toyota TV commercials that were running non-stop last month.

Out of all the great rock songs butchered by commercials, that may have been the worst version ever.