15inch PowerBook Details and Supplies

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by JayBee
I think g5ing the 15" at the moment would be a very bad move for Apple. Who'd buy a PM? The PM needs time to break in and the G4 is not dead. Bear in mind that the G3 is still shipping. If they're going to update the PBs to g5s, then they'd really HAVE to update the iBooks to G4s. Anybody know what stock levels look like on the iBooks?

The Power Macs are a great deal more powerful than the PowerBooks would be. That's the reason someone would buy them.

Again, if they did buy PowerBooks instead, Apple would make more money. This is something Apple would promote.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
So why hasn't Apple gained marketshare?? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the pressure of short term profits overrides the quest for log term gains?

If you really think Apple operates that way, you are ignorant.

 

[neonart]

Re: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf

If Macs were faster and cheaper, we'd all be screaming about how great it is to have faster machines than the PC folks.

Again.
It's not all about faster and cheaper.

 

[Bruja]

Re: Re: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by neonart
OSX is not the only luxury of a Mac, just like leather heated seats are not the only luxury of a fine European sedan.

Build quality in the product, OS/Software/Hardware integration and simplicity, are some of the luxuries of a Mac.

And for those people sick and tired of all the issues they put up with in the Windows world OSX is a HUGE advantage. Those smart enough and not convinced by "numbers and power" get it and see this clear advantage.

EXAMPLE: How many of the folks on this Mac board were affected by the latest, greatest worm virus?
How much more efficient at work were the guys with their 86Ghz Dell Laptops rebooting every 3 minutes as they tried to hope and finish that damn update/antivirus patch?

NO one with a Mac even thought of the issue.
How's that for luxury?

If you dont like Macs then don't use one. Trying to badmouth them on this board does nothing good for anyone here.

Ditto... However, there are a lot of "Black Hats" that have turned their attention to MS and have no beef w/ Mac Users. Oh BTW: I checked my neighbourhood store and they have very few if none at all of the 15" ers. but they said that if they do not have it in stock, they could get it by the next Wednesday and they have 5 Frankenbooks on hand for now..
EDIT@10:18 EST (Probably a lot of black hats)

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you really think Apple operates that way, you are ignorant.

Come now, that is excessive. A lot of companies do think in the short term. Based on Apple's pricing structure and their declining marketshare, is it not possible that Apple is thinking short-term as well? If I am ignorant, then educate me. How is Apple going after switchers and marketshare? I hope the answer is not just "running TV ads".

Originally posted by neonart
Again.
It's not all about faster and cheaper.

Maybe not all, but a significant amount is about faster and cheaper, for switchers.

 

[Beleava24]

I'm trying to switch....

Okay folks, I'm currently stuck in a Windows world! I was a diehard Microsoft guy and when I started my current job the IT guy was diehard Mac. He made me use a Mac...albeit with OS 8...okay, okay OS 9...and I absolutely hated it!! But after about a week I was hooked. I remember that I learned on a Mac way back in the day and I had forgotten how easy they were to use. I had forgotten there was no "blue screen of death." I had forgotten that I wouldn't lose my files. And I was using OS 9!! Then I had a chance to experience OS X. I was through. My decision was easy enough...PowerBook G4. After saying I wanted the 17" I checked it out and realized it was too big for me. Then I began thinking about the 15" and I was all set to buy the TiBook and then...BAM!! Rumors of updated 15's. Well, now I've been waiting for months and nothing. All the while I'm trying to start my own business and I need a laptop!! Ahhh...I just can't take the madness anymore!! I need a tissue!!

Sorry folks...sorta emotional thinking about a 15" with Al and backlit keyboard!

Oh, and by the way, I'm a first time poster!!

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
Argh. Please quit with the "trolling" ad hominem nonsense. If you have a substantive comment to make, then make it.

I have been making substantive comments, to which, it seems to me, most of your replies have been to talk about how evil and greedy Apple is. So, please, forgive me if I call a spade a spade.

So why hasn't Apple gained marketshare?? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the pressure of short term profits overrides the quest for log term gains? Has it occurred to you that the customers have an impact on the market? We (the mac market) is currently in decline. Do you want that to continue? Personally, I do not.

There are a huge number of issues involved in answering this question. Apple was increasing their marketshare for a while, but then the general processor improvement slow-down from Moto hit (or do you think that Apple orchestrated that, too?). Yes, right now Macs (pre G5) are not performing at the same level as Intel based computers. Apple has had some issues with weak hardware. However, everything that I've seen over the past twenty plus years of owning Apple computers tends to make me think that the problem is not with Apple. Maybe they've made some poor decisions about who to use as a Pro level processor supplier, but most of their in house decisions seem to be aimed fairly well at promoting their customers best interest.

Yes, I'd love to be able to brag about having the fastest hardware on the block. But, for me, even when I don't have that to brag about, there's plenty else to brag about.

You argue that Apple is gouging us. What's your reasoning behind this? Just performance? Look at it from Apple's perspective. They have to have a top-of-the-line Mac. They put the top-of-the-line processor in it, which, at this point, happens to be a G4 (hopefully that'll change pretty quickly here, but there's certainly a lot of engineering to go into it to make that happen). In addition, they also use all top-of-the-line hardware. If you want to compare to a Windows laptop, compare to a TOTL model, not a consumer model.

Yes, the Pentium line has the G4 beat on performance. So what. Yesterday's news. We now have the G5, and it'll make it to the PowerBook line soon, I'm sure. (Don't ask me what 'soon' means, because I honestly don't know. But, based on what information has been available, if they could put a G5 in sooner, it might actually save them money, as the per chip cost is less than that of the G4.

 

[JayBee]

Just a thought... does "declining market share" actually mean "declining number of computers sold"?

Bear in mind, the "market" has grown (and continues to grow, despite the depression) substantially over the last few years. It is possible given the numbers (and I say "POSSIBLE" as I don't have the numbers to verify - I mean mathematically) that Apple is actually selling more units, but that the market is growing faster than their share. Hence declining share != declining sales necessarily.

Just an offtopic thought I reckoned I should share 🙂

Remember as well that Apple's oft-stated strategy for coping with the depression is to "innovate [their] way our of it". Turning into a big-box retailer ain't where it's at - not as far as "innovation" goes. They've got their budget line in the eMac, and it's a roaring success, but Apple can't afford to lose its Quality brand identity at any cost. Increasing its market share by cutting corners to make its products more "competitive" would be shooting itself in the foot long term.

As far as Apple's concerned, the fact that it's the Audi of PC manufacturers is their strongest asset. Anything that's too "short term" would just be killing the goose, and they can't afford to do that.

Finally, anyone who thinks Apple has *ever* been concerned only with the short term should ask themselves why we've been waiting nigh-on a year for a PB update 😉

 

[panphage]

Re: Marketshare

Jaybee: I would hazard a guess that apple's sales of computers is pretty much an upward curve. The marketshare numbers people throw around are just as much garbage as benchmarks. Any number can be bent and twisted and interpreted to within an inch of it's life. Maybe apple's percentage of total systems sold is low, 3-5%. But given a mac's longer effective life expectancy and the high resale value of apple machines, I'd guess total number of users is a significantly higher percentage.

Also keep in mind that apple doesn't appear to be on the same shakey ground it was on when they bought NeXT and Steve returned. The stock price is going up consistently while the rest of the industry struggles, analysts are recommending apple stock, and never forget that Apple, like Microsoft, keeps eerie amounts of cash (billions) on hand. This is not a company that's struggling. The G5 looks set to usher in a new age of increasing sales so long as Apple and IBM keep improving these machines. Just an opinion, but market share seems like a paper tiger. Increasing sales, increasing stock price, low inventory, and market confidence in the company mean a lot more than whether they have as many users as company X. As long as those sales stay strong, apple will be around for us to love and bitch about.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
Come now, that is excessive. A lot of companies do think in the short term. Based on Apple's pricing structure and their declining marketshare, is it not possible that Apple is thinking short-term as well? If I am ignorant, then educate me. How is Apple going after switchers and marketshare? I hope the answer is not just "running TV ads".

To know Apple, one must know Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs is not one who worries about short-term profits. Steve Jobs is not one who worries much about profits at all, except as an issue of corporate self-preservation. Steve Jobs is an artist, or at least he thinks he is. He wants revolutionary technology that changes the world. Apple isn't a profits type of company, and treating them like they are doesn't work.

Remember, the one man who Apple kept from the Amelio administration was Fred Anderson, the CFO. Why? Fred Anderson is the profits guy. He's the only profits guy. The Apple executive team knows next to nothing about actually running a company. Steve's a poor manager, Avie's a programmer, Rubenstein's just a chief hardware designer. Steve's the driving force and the inspirational leader, and the in-house visionary. So the businessmen (Anderson, Schiller, Joswiak) exist as mouthpieces and for the company's own self-preservation, so they don't go totally crazy with technology and stop actually making money (which is what almost killed them in the 90's.)

Apple is a group of crazy people trying to change the world, who just manage to have a few businessmen around often enough to make sure they don't go broke.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by JayBee
Just a thought... does "declining market share" actually mean "declining number of computers sold"?

Bear in mind, the "market" has grown (and continues to grow, despite the depression) substantially over the last few years. It is possible given the numbers (and I say "POSSIBLE" as I don't have the numbers to verify - I mean mathematically) that Apple is actually selling more units, but that the market is growing faster than their share. Hence declining share != declining sales necessarily.

Just an offtopic thought I reckoned I should share 🙂

Definitely. Market shares are skewed for the following reasons:

1. As they say on Slashdot, "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those things!". People tend to buy more clusters of Intel computers (although Power Mac and XServe clusters are starting to change that.)
2. How often do you replace your Mac? Your PC?
3. I buy a Mac. I buy Virtual PC. Virtual PC is considered a PC, depending on how you count the statistics. Wow, I just decreased Apple's market share.
4. It's not Tuesday yet 😀

 

[JayBee]

panphage : Spot on. Nice to hear someone saying that for a change, compared to all the doomsayers chanting about the Wintel barbarians at the gates 🙂

Whatever we may speculate and debate in here, the fact is that Apple's stock is up, its profits are rising, and it seems that the only people worried about "competitiveness" of Apple are the ones who seem to be slightly missing what Apple is all about, and who are proceeding from the false assumption that Apple either wants to be or _has_ to be Microsoft or Dell in order to remain "viable".

Apple is in the business of "thinking different" - That's one of the things that makes them a great company. It's also one of the things that makes them totally unpredictable, and is one of the things that makes rumour sites like this so much fun.

Who knows WHAT could come out of Cupertino in the next few weeks. Steve could unveil a new Apple moonrocket tomorrow, and it would seem somehow logical. THAT's Apple's competitive edge.

When was the last time anyone stayed up till 4am to watch a Dell keynote? Does that make us zealots? Possibly, but does Dell have zealots?

The market loves "premium" companies like Apple, like Audi, like Ferrari, like Lear, like Armani... You get the idea.

Apple's only real competition out there is Sony, and sony only make hardware...

Right, it's 4am here and I'm rambling, so I'm off to bed before I manage to piss everyone off before I reach 10 posts... 😉

 

[bumbledork]

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the pressure of short term profits overrides the quest for log term gains?

Well...it shouldn't occur to anyone who is familar with AAPL. We all know they hold roughly $12 per share in cash and if you were smart bought tons it at $13.75 in April of this year and in so doing paid a buck and change for forward earnings. Lots of smart people did this. It is also well known AAPL is one of the most forward thinking corportations not only in terms of product but also FUTURE profits (i.e. not short term quarter to quarter). Note the R&D expenditures in their 10-Q, they are willing to sacrifice short term profits for FUTURE long term gains $$$. This is a well know fact on the street as well as being spewed from on high in Cupertino. So give us a break with your elementry economic theory.

"The Company's research and development expenditures, before any charges for purchased in-process research and development, totaled $446_million, $430_million, and $380_million in 2002, 2001, and 2000, respectively."

"The Company's ability to compete successfully and maintain attractive gross margins is heavily dependent upon its ability to ensure a continuing and timely flow of innovative and competitive products and technology to the marketplace. As a result, the Company incurs higher research and development costs as a percentage of revenue than its competitors who sell Windows-based personal computers. Many of these competitors seek to compete aggressively on price and maintain very low cost structures. "

"I truly don't suffer fools well"

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes, the Pentium line has the G4 beat on performance. So what. Yesterday's news.

Until the G5 makes it into the powerbook, this is Today's News as well. I hope Apple is doing their best at making a G5 powerbook--meaning I hope they started development a long time ago.

I don't see Apple as an inherently evil company; but I don't think they're inherently enlightened either. I guess I got a little carried away, but let me change my position slightly here to bring it more in line with what I am actually thinking. I don't think they will hold back on G5 development, because you are of course correct that such an action is not going to save them any money. But what I see them doing time and time again is pricing their hardware too high. And I think the reason they do that is that they see that almost all their existing customer base is willing to pay for it. For example, if Apple was to release 1.2 GHz G4 Powerbooks next week, with an aluminum 15, I get the sense that most people here would gladly pay for it at the existing price points.

I see this as disastrous from the perspective of growing Apple marketshare.

 

[JayBee]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
But what I see them doing time and time again is pricing their hardware too high.

What does "too high" mean, exactly?

 

[chancellor]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes, but the question is where did they get their information from? Rumor sites?

Actually, as far as I can tell, all the rumors of the 15.4" have come from Digitimes in the first place.

 

[Lord Bodak]

Well I've spent the last 3 months saving every penny for my 12" PowerBook. Now after today I have the money to order it... hopefully I will awake tomorrow and find a shiny new model to order!

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Apple is a group of crazy people trying to change the world, who just manage to have a few businessmen around often enough to make sure they don't go broke.

I see. What I am hearing, then, is that Apple isn't particularly interested in marketshare per se. They are interested in making cool new products, and enough profits so they don't go under. They have a loyal customer base, which doesn't mind paying a little extra for cooler products. So they price things a little higher to make sure they stay afloat and rely on their loyal customer base to accept that. I am not saying any of this is bad--but am I painting an accurate picture of Apple here?

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by JayBee
What does "too high" mean, exactly?

Too high means too high to attract switchers.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
But what I see them doing time and time again is pricing their hardware too high.

Actually, if they're at a price that many people are willing to pay, it's well-priced.

Originally posted by soggywulf
I see this as disastrous from the perspective of growing Apple marketshare.

Marketshare is irrelevant.

 

[chancellor]

Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Snowy_River There are a huge number of issues involved in answering this question. Apple was increasing their marketshare for a while, but then the general processor improvement slow-down from Moto hit (or do you think that Apple orchestrated that, too?). [/i]. [/B]

Marketshare is an indication of how many people are buying which computers. Lots of people were holding out buying PowerMacs because they weren't improving much with newer G4s. Likewise, lots of us are holding out on Powerbook purchases while we wait for a better and faster Powerbook. This is, in part, pushing marketshare down.

However, this doesn't mean that there are fewer Mac users.

 

[JayBee]

Re: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
I see. What I am hearing, then, is that Apple isn't particularly interested in marketshare per se. They are interested in making cool new products, and enough profits so they don't go under. They have a loyal customer base, which doesn't mind paying a little extra for cooler products. So they price things a little higher to make sure they stay afloat and rely on their loyal customer base to accept that. I am not saying any of this is bad--but am I painting an accurate picture of Apple here?

Pretty much. I'd also remember that the "higher" price is actually also absorbing a _massive_ r&d spend that other PC builders simply do not have. In many cases, Apple's income is actually indirectly subsidising the likes of Sony's profits, as we're paying for the innovation, but other companies can then "copy and paste" that innovation for just the cost of a lawyer to make sure it's not _too_good_ a copy 😉

And the definition of "too high", to my mind, is that the price is higher than your target market is willing to spend. Apple's target market has never been the "I can build it for $300" crowd. Does that make Apple buyers easily led, gullible, or willing to get screwed? Only if you judge from the point of view of the $300 PC. You can't compare a 3 litre Hyundai to a 2 litre BMW and say that the Hyundai is the better car because it's faster and cheaper. If you do, then maybe the BMW isn't for you, cos that's not what you're buying when you get a BMW 😉

 

[Sergem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparing notebooks

(To be more blunt: You don't see many A4 owners trading in their Audis for a Subaru. Not that the Subaru is bad, it's just that they're aimed at different markets. To some people, raw power is everything; to others, refinement plays a bigger role.) [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm the proof that this analogy works. I happen to own an Audi A4, and I'll be getting a Powerbook as soon as the updates are released. (It will be my first mac in 10+ years. ) 😀

 

[ozlow]

don't mess with Phil Of Mac!

Did you see his website? He looks bad-ass with those guns! Don't mess with Phil of the Mac!!!

 

[panphage]

I think the funniest part of the whole thing it that I'm a very happy user of a 450Mhz cube. 😀 So I am personally part of the marketshare problem.

A remark related to the discussion: When Steve returned I really expected Apple to bring their prices way down. They have started to with this last round of price cuts and I hope Steve can convince the business people to continue. Maybe Apple is a bunch of crazed geniuses who happen to have enough business people around to keep them afloat, but it was one of those business people that pretty much relegated apple to an "also-ran" as far as mindshare (MUCH more important than marketshare, if you ask me.) John Sculley forced the original macintosh price up to $2495, where steve wanted it to come in at $1995. Sculley was after short-term profits, Steve wanted it low enough that people who weren't computer geeks might think of getting one. Quoting Steve as he is quoted in _Insanely_Great_, "I could get $2,495 for every one I [make] for six to nine months. But I'd rather really make this the next revolution. So we're forsaking some profits." So it seems like Steve's business head might have been in the right place, but his system design was terribly lacking. He was responsible for the original Macintosh lacking a hard drive. 🙄