Apple's 10-K Filing

[SchlimpyChicken]

Re: raw numbers

Originally posted by blueBomber

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+

Uh, because unlike AMD, Apple's claim (as posted by you) would be an outright lie.

You can't talk about MHz and forget about system and RAM bus speeds. Apple currently has a serious problem with memory bandwidth and bus speed. I would (generously) revise your numbering system to read:

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 2000+

 

[fourthtunz]

Re: Twice the Speed, Half the Price

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."

In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.

They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.

Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.

Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."

Well for consumers at the price you mention the Imac will fill the bill, the old one or the new or even the emac will be close and they will be alot happier when the firewire works and they have the full version of the os and without the Government seeing evrything you do the included apps are very good, but if you had a new Mac you would know that right?
daniel

 

[SchlimpyChicken]

Re: Re: Twice the Speed, Half the Price

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Well for consumers at the price you mention the Imac will fill the bill, the old one or the new or even the emac will be close and they will be alot happier when the firewire works and they have the full version of the os and without the Government seeing everything you do the included apps are very good

Typical response. So Joe User should buy a used 700MHz eMac/iMac for the same price as an new, upgradeable 1.8GHz Dell with 15" LCD monitor and warranty?

Do you want a job at Apple or something?

I don't think I'll even dignify the OS and government comment with a real response.

 

[fourthtunz]

Re: Mac Sterotype?

Originally posted by Edot
One thing besides price and speed that I haven't seen brought up here is the sterotype that a Macintosh is a low quality, slow, and unreliable computer. The majority of people I talk to haven't seen a mac since 1995, and when they see their new computers and OS X they are shocked. I find it very amuzing that people think that Apple computers have not changed for 5-7 years. Where Apple's bad name came from, I have no idea. To all of us their name spells Quality, but not to the common uneducated consumer. Especially Teenages, we had a mac lab at our high school, which was horrible run by the way, and the students always said, "These stupid macs!". I would ask why they are stupid, and they had no real answer. Where did this stereotype come from, and why does it still exist? My girlfriend happend to switch 4 people, including her teacher by giving a speech on Apple, with her iMac. When people see a NEW mac they are WOWED. I just wish this would happen more often.

I also enjoy the Pre-Highschool economics, lower prices->More Sales.

Yeah what you said! But check out the posters on this thread, most sound like pc users(lots of time on their hands?)
or owners of really old Macs, neither have used Jag with a new G4
with its firewire. This also means that they haven't used Apple inlcuded apps, such as Idvd,Iphoto, or Imovie. If they think dells firewire and included apps are of the same caliber, well I hope they just use their pc for games and the internet
Daniel

 

[fourthtunz]

Re: Re: Re: Twice the Speed, Half the Price

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken

Typical response. So Joe User should buy a used 700MHz eMac/iMac for the same price as an new, upgradeable 1.8GHz Dell with 15" LCD monitor and warranty?

Do you want a job at Apple or something?

I don't think I'll even dignify the OS and government comment with a real response.

Hey dude, all I'm saying is joe user is not going to buy pci cards and is going to have better apps, and a better experience with a Mac when they hook up their digi camera/camcorder.
I have no problen with XP, I don't think it is a good as MAC OSX.2 but, I have heard with xp their was some deal about the Government being sent info from each computer that uses it?
Not true? Well is there any truth to this?
YOu don't really think the $700 dell is going to give you the same quality and user experience as even a emac do you? Go ahead and take your firewire camcorder to an apple store and try out imovie, then try it on your dell, see what you think
Daniel

 

[petee]

The Car analogy

The car analogy that I hear mac users is a bit ridiculous. the gist os which is that a peecee is = to a Honda or Yugo and a Mac is = to a Porsche, Mercedeces (sp), Austin Martin etc. I guess I find this a bit stupid because you never hear of a porsche owner handwringing over Porsche's market share in the auto industry, or how the company is going to woo the average car owner to their "brand". I have accepted the fact that Apple is niche platform. With the current "switch" promos, I'm not sure that Apple has. Can you imagine a "switch" ad for Rolls Royce? I think I would pay to see one.
If Apple is going to go the low price model than they would almost certainly have to go the X86 route. That would probably be a mistake unless they decided to get out of the hardware side. I disagree with a previous poster about Apple's prospects as a software comp only. Times are much different than 10 years ago. Linux is really worrying Microsoft because they are taking marketshare from them. (How many articles have we read about Microsoft bashing Apple? Makes me wonder if Apple is even on Microsoft's radar screen.) I just read an article two days ago that predicts Linux having more marketshare than Apple in a year or two. I think that spells more trouble for Apple than the prospects of Microsoft going to Unix. Its quite possible that the current business model of selling software is going to die in 5 years. (Playing oracle again, sorry.)
As for speed of computers... speed does matter. Somebody will always come up with an program that is going to tax current systems and will require more CPUs, larger memory bandwith etc. I think more people realize this than we are willing to credit.

An aside: I wonder if the designs of the iMacs have turned some potential customers away. Not because of their specs, but because of the trendiness of the designs. I think that some people (most) can live with the fact that their computer is not the latest of greatest and very few are interested in do-it-yourself upgrading. But no one wants to be stuck with the equivalent of a 70's style shiny polyester suit on their desk. Not that it is ugly, but that I may go out of fashion in the near future. I think that the reason Steve has gone this route is to make the computer another toaster in the house. An appliance. But I wonder if it backfired a bit. Has anybody heard of a potential customer "not making the Switch" because of the design of the iMac?

 

[tgrundke]

Re: Half the speed, twice the price

"Half the speed, twice the price" is just about right, kids. The "coolness" factor of Apple's products has worn out its welcome and we're now at a point where people are asking, "but is it worth it?"

Several issues that keep Apple back:
1) Un-upgradable video in iMac. For $1999, the imac 17" is a great, cool computer blessed with no video expansion. If you check industry trends, the #1 upgrade to old(er) computers is the video circuitry. Buying a $1999 machine that has 'no legs' to grow with me is a big turn-off.

2) Price/Performance level of desktop computers. Apple's PowerMac line simply is *not* price/performance competitve. Regardless what Apple says, consumers are used to the following equation: performance goes up, price goes down.

Apple, for obvious financial reasons, does *not* follow this equation. They maintain the same prices for speed values that are 12-18 months behind the mainstream. All myth aside, this is what the aggregate market sees.

Compared to the broader market, the 1.25ghz top of the line PowerMac G4 should be selling for sub-$1000, not $3499 plus. Clearly Apple cannot do that.

My point here is that Apple tries to convince Wall Street and mainstreet that it does not play by the same rules as the Wintel Industry, yet at the same time tries to convince everyone that it can, in fact, compete with the Wintel industry. Confusing message, isn't it?

And the reality is that Apple *does* compete with the Wintel industry - it competes for end users, it competes for software manufacturers' resources and efforts. Selling to Apple's installed base is a losing proposition in the long run, and this is one of the reasons you see Apple's stock price hovering around $15/share for the last two years: investors don't see much future upward growth in the company.

I've said it before and I'll restate it here: the megahertz myth is a great marketing tool, Apple is a great company when it comes to marketing. But if the company does not get its act together and release some price/performance competitive hardware very quickly, we're looking at a very bleak forecast.

The plus is that Apple is quickly approaching one of its "bet the company" periods that seems to pop up every few years like clockwork. The good side to this is that Apple is usually at its very best when its backed to the wall. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Originally posted by SchlimpyChicken
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."

In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.

They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.

Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.

Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."

 

[tgrundke]

Re: The Car analogy

Correct: the automotive industry analogy is ass-backward and inappropriate upon close examination.

Once more, a good marketing slogan, as long as we don't start eating our own bull**** and believing it.

To restate: The car analogy is inappropriate because cars do not require their own specialized gasoline or specialized roads to make them work. Apple "does" in that it requires a different subset of fuel and roads. Case closed.

As to the iMac trendiness, I would say that more of the problem with the iMac is not so much the trendiness, but the inability to customize it properly and upgrade it decently. If you buy the 15" model there's little opportunity to upgrade the monitor or the video card. If you buy the 17" (the only decent one, IMO) you still cannot upgrade the video. S o you are stuck with a $2000 computer whose second-most important component-the video card, cannot be upgraded.

The whole equation comes back to price/performance ratios. The switchers campaign is merely a diversion at the moment to keep us *off* of the price/performance issue. Apple would be far more successful in switching people if its price/performance were moer in check at the moment.

Originally posted by petee
The car analogy that I hear mac users is a bit ridiculous. the gist os which is that a peecee is = to a Honda or Yugo and a Mac is = to a Porsche, Mercedeces (sp), Austin Martin etc. I guess I find this a bit stupid because you never hear of a porsche owner handwringing over Porsche's market share in the auto industry, or how the company is going to woo the average car owner to their "brand". I have accepted the fact that Apple is niche platform. With the current "switch" promos, I'm not sure that Apple has. Can you imagine a "switch" ad for Rolls Royce? I think I would pay to see one.
If Apple is going to go the low price model than they would almost certainly have to go the X86 route. That would probably be a mistake unless they decided to get out of the hardware side. I disagree with a previous poster about Apple's prospects as a software comp only. Times are much different than 10 years ago. Linux is really worrying Microsoft because they are taking marketshare from them. (How many articles have we read about Microsoft bashing Apple? Makes me wonder if Apple is even on Microsoft's radar screen.) I just read an article two days ago that predicts
Linux having more marketshare than Apple in a year or two. I think that spells more trouble for Apple than the prospects of Microsoft going to Unix. Its quite possible that the current business model of selling software is going to die in 5 years. (Playing oracle again, sorry.)
As for speed of computers... speed does matter. Somebody will always come up with an program that is going to tax current systems and will require more CPUs, larger memory bandwith etc. I think more people realize this than we are willing to credit.

An aside: I wonder if the designs of the iMacs have turned some potential customers away. Not because of their specs, but because of the trendiness of the designs. I think that some people (most) can live with the fact that their computer is not the latest of greatest and very few are interested in do-it-yourself upgrading. But no one wants to be stuck with the equivalent of a 70's style shiny polyester suit on their desk. Not that it is ugly, but that I may go out of fashion in the near future. I think that the reason Steve has gone this route is to make the computer another toaster in the house. An appliance. But I wonder if it backfired a bit. Has anybody heard of a potential customer "not making the Switch" because of the design of the iMac?

 

[arogge]

Re: raw numbers

Originally posted by blueBomber
why doesn't Apple pull the same thing AMD has done recently, put how fast the chip performs compared to the competition in the name instead of the actual clock speed.

1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+

it could work...

I was going to suggest this idea, but I reconsidered. I'd be interested to hear about how many additional sales AMD has earned as a result of the Intel-compliant numbering scheme. The plan has one major flaw: Intel, with its tremendous manufacturing ability and cash reserves, can keep raising the MHz number of its own chips and AMD will lose every time. So AMD has a 2800+ and Apple has a 3000+ - Intel can simply name its new chip the 3500 MHz and make everyone else look slow by direct comparison. What Apple needs to do is create new ways to show how its computers are really of higher-quality than the likes of Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc. Having a gaming card for graphics in the PowerMac and PowerBook doesn't help. For computers that are generally more expensive than competitors' products, one should at least be able to find ATI Fire, NVIDIA Quadro4, Oxygen, or Wildcat graphics chips in them. By conforming to Intel's numbering scheme, companies like AMD only serve to dig a deeper hole for themselves as Intel continues to overclock the Pentium. Maybe if Apple went to 64-bit and competed against the Itanium with its lower MHz number, the game could start anew.

 

[Bregalad]

Re: Re: Mac Sterotype?

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Yeah what you said! But check out the posters on this thread, most sound like pc users(lots of time on their hands?)
or owners of really old Macs, neither have used Jag with a new G4
with its firewire. This also means that they haven't used Apple inlcuded apps, such as Idvd,Iphoto, or Imovie. If they think dells firewire and included apps are of the same caliber, well I hope they just use their pc for games and the internet
Daniel

Here's a quick hint Daniel, most consumers will never use a program like iDVD or even iMovie. Most consumers want a computer for email, games, web browsing, Quicken and Word, in that order. Now does it make sense that Apple only has a 3-4% market share?

Even a two year old PC with a market value of less than $300 will handle all of that including many games. The two year old PCs where I work seem to be able to play Battlefield 1942 quite well so it's only a tiny segment of the market that really needs a faster box.

That's why we're seeing such incredible deals on new PCs. Very few people need more than they already have. Dell, being one of the few PC makers with any money, is using this period to gain market share. In the business market I think they're succeeding too. In the home market the big growth is in the no-name area, the locally assembled machines. Kids are telling their parents that they can make them a better, faster computer than Dell can and save money at the same time. Gateway is probably going to go bankrupt again trying to match prices with local vendors while Dell is rich enough to be able to ride it out. There will always be a big segment of the market that wants a name brand computer, no matter how stupid such a purchase might be, and Dell wants every one of those people to buy from them.

I realize everything I've said seems to suggest that Apple is doing fine by advertising what you can do with a Mac and avoiding performance comparisons. Unfortunately 80% of computer buyers don't consider Apple, 50% of those who do see the price tag and run away screaming, and 50% of those who remain see the lower performance numbers and walk away. That leaves only 5% of buyers who will think seriously about getting a Mac. Clearly Apple is doing a fantastic job of selling to them because almost all of them do get a Mac.

I'm going to stop arguing at this point and simply tell you all why I know that my G4 will be replaced by another Mac. By the time I can justify the expense, Microsoft and Intel will probably have implemented their pieces of the Trusted Computing Platform. That means that anything a PC user wants to do will rely on a combination of hardware and software designed to keep you from doing anything with your PC that those companies don't want you doing. Redmond will have the ability to monitor practically everything Windows users do (whether they actually do it is another matter) and it'll even be hard for Linux users to get around the controls because they'll be built into the Pentium V and Itanium chips. Oh sure hacks will be available almost immediately, but when you want to do some online shopping without a Microsoft issued ID code, you'll be up a creek without a paddle.

Big Brother lives. His name is Steve Balmer and he's coming soon to a PC near you.

PS. The average consumer thinks "trusted computing" is a good thing. Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[solvs]

I agree on the price issue. Apple should be using this time to gain market share (they're already playing to those who are fed up with Windows). "All that stuff you do with a PC, you can do it with a Mac, and fewer headaches". It looks like they're on the right track, lowering prices across the board (except for the Towers, for now). But with the MHz problem, they really should try a little harder. We don't want them going the Gateway route, but they need something to compete with Dell.

Too bad they don't sell a Do-It-Yourselfers kit.

As far as sped is concerned, I was just reading a couple of benchmarks. Some of them have titles like "Intel Slaughters the G4". Then you look at the scores. A top of the line P4 with more than twice the GHz #s is barely a few seconds faster on some tests. And a lot of them are memory and drive related. Of course benchmarks don't say much, I just care of real world performance, and getting the most bang for my buck.

Although a similarly configured PC (not a home built) isn't THAT much cheaper than a G4 (your results may vary).

So for a little more money for a little less performance. I think I can live with that.

Now bring on the cheap-a**, P4 a**-kicking Towers.

 

[unifiedtheorist]

motorola--dont lose faith

for those of you that are worried about motorola's role in computer chip manufacturing in the future, you should check this out: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13309.html
i suspect that, much like apple, motorola spends more of its time trying to make new and better technology rather than pushing existing technology to its limits. so apple isn't the only company that prefers to "think different". of all people, mac users should know not to knock a company that is trying to change the face of an industry

 

[tgrundke]

Re: motorola--dont lose faith

The fatal problem here is this: Apple is more than welcome to 'push the envelope' and develop new, intriguing, ground-breaking products. However, in order to finance such endeavors, you must be able to sell an established product that can keep revenues and profits while the new product is introduced. Furthermore, if Motorola, as a key Apple supplier, is more interested in developing new markets and products than supporting its current ones (Apple, for example), then Apple needs to go shopping for new suppliers to fit ITS needs.

Being a developer of groundbreaking technologies and products is not easy nor cheap. You need an established product revenue stream to accomplish this. Moreover, technology partners whose dedication to needed components is minimal don't help much.

Originally posted by unifiedtheorist
for those of you that are worried about motorola's role in computer chip manufacturing in the future, you should check this out: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13309.html
i suspect that, much like apple, motorola spends more of its time trying to make new and better technology rather than pushing existing technology to its limits. so apple isn't the only company that prefers to "think different". of all people, mac users should know not to knock a company that is trying to change the face of an industry

 

[reversereligion]

i personally hate how mac obsesses over case design. I feel like I'm paying a lot of extra r&d money for a purely cosmetic feature. i put my cpu in a closet anyway to cut down on noise.

my personal taste for cases is simple:
big and cheap, so you can cram a lot of hard drives in and modify easily.

there are plenty of rather serviceable generic cases out there that open up very easily. nice big server styled ones... fit lots of stuff no problem.


there are only two reasons I use a mac: the os is stable and it runs the software I like. But even know I use PC's. I'm kind of schizophrenic. mac's price/performance ratio really sucks right now. i can build a pc twice as fast/twice the ram/twice the hd space as the most powerful mac, and do it at half the cost.

in fact, that is what i will be doing over the winter.

Originally posted by mrpepsi


I guess I never really thought about it that way. With a BMW or Mercedes you get a faster, more comfortable, safer vehicle. With a Mac you get style and stability.

What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

 

[reversereligion]

mhz matters

i think the hardcore mac loyalists are in complete denial when they say "mhz doesn't matter".

If right now Apples had higher mhz, all the mac-heads would be gloating wildly "we're the best...look we've got the highest mhz... wintel sucks...blah blah blah"

rather, right now mac-heads are trying to justify their small endowment in the face of noticably bigger contestants... sad really.

look at *software* for a moment. what does it say on the box in terms of system requirements. it's always the same three things:
1) which version of the operating system it will run on
2) how much ram you need
3) minimum/recommended processor speed, in mhz

are all these software designers stupid?

who here would really trade in their 1ghz mac for a 233mhz and not care, because mhz "doesn't matter"

let's get real. the truth is that motorola is sucking wind in getting clock speeds up. moore's law states that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months. apple hasn't gone anywhere, while wintel keeps pace.

apple really looks like a wimp boxer inside a fancy ring-robe at the moment. macs can dance around the ring all they want, and dance they must, because the real punch is coming from the wintel platform.

don't get hit apple, you'll get knocked out in the first round.

 

[kansaigaijin]

mhz myth and mac users

you are right.

but what matters now is that Apple knows it has a problem, even if mac users don't. They probably have a plan B to deal with it.

the users may be in denial, but according to the 10-K filing, the company is not. That is encouraging. The only real solution? Take Marklar to market.

 

[Sauron's Master]

Re: mhz matters

Originally posted by reversereligion
i think the hardcore mac loyalists are in complete denial when they say "mhz doesn't matter".

If right now Apples had higher mhz, all the mac-heads would be gloating wildly "we're the best...look we've got the highest mhz... wintel sucks...blah blah blah"

rather, right now mac-heads are trying to justify their small endowment in the face of noticably bigger contestants... sad really.

look at *software* for a moment. what does it say on the box in terms of system requirements. it's always the same three things:
1) which version of the operating system it will run on
2) how much ram you need
3) minimum/recommended processor speed, in mhz

are all these software designers stupid?

who here would really trade in their 1ghz mac for a 233mhz and not care, because mhz "doesn't matter"

let's get real. the truth is that motorola is sucking wind in getting clock speeds up. moore's law states that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months. apple hasn't gone anywhere, while wintel keeps pace.

apple really looks like a wimp boxer inside a fancy ring-robe at the moment. macs can dance around the ring all they want, and dance they must, because the real punch is coming from the wintel platform.

don't get hit apple, you'll get knocked out in the first round.

Yes, we mac fanatics would be gloating if we had higher mhz on our processors. Do you know why? Because with the superior architecture of the G4 and altivec, we would be kicking ass like in the days of the 603e's and 604e's. The mhz myth is the concept that that mhz is not an accurate measurement of speed of processors based on different architectures or occasionally, different chipsets. They wouldn't trade in a 1 ghz mac for a 233 mhz mac because they're identical architectures and one is definitely faster. However, I would bet that they would trade in a 1 ghz PIII or Celeron for something like a 233 mhz MIPS R14k or Power4 chip. Motorola is lagging because they are far more interested in embedded chips. Apple should seriously dump them unless you want a G4 about as fast as your graphing calculator or cell phone. Macs, unfortunately, are slower but with the release of the PPC 970 sometime in late 2003 or early 2004, we should be back on track. Its emulation for 32 bit applications is superior to that of the Itanium chips, which will matter until most apps are converted to 64 bit and it has faster clock speed. :-D. IBM is far superior to Motorola in terms of chip-making abilities. If Apple had stuck with IBM, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Yes, Macs are slower than PC's but I think that all of us can survive another 9-12 monthes of waiting if only to prepare our bank accounts for some spending. ;-).

 

[Sauron's Master]

Re: mhz myth and mac users

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
you are right.

but what matters now is that Apple knows it has a problem, even if mac users don't. They probably have a plan B to deal with it.

the users may be in denial, but according to the 10-K filing, the company is not. That is encouraging. The only real solution? Take Marklar to market.

I hope you were being sarcastic. Take Marklar to market? The instant Marklar goes to market, it means that Apple will collapse very soon. If it even exists, Marklar would be Apple's last resort plan to save itself. Would anyone even buy it? No programs would natively run in it without Apple having convert them. No drivers for external devices. Nothing. Just an Unix-like OS called OS X on a PC. I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.

 

[kansaigaijin]

so SM do you have an argument to explain why apple would collapse?

why doesn't M$ collapse? it is just an OS on a PC. and a hated one at that. They only make money on the OS and Office, and at an 85% margin!

If it even exists? it does, and apple keeps it up-to-date in parralel with PPC updates.

How can you get more than a few PC users to switch when it means they have to buy a whole new computer, at great expense? Or they could simply install an new OS. Quite simple when it is an Apple OS. Got to pay for all that OS development cost somehow, and the purchase of Next.

 

[Sauron's Master]

Yes, I have an explanation to my argument. Apple has a viable OS that is superior to anything else available on the market. It also has viable hardware (or semi depending on your opinion.) It actually has an OS able to run a sufficient number of programs including industry-standard ones in graphics, and other fields. Why the hell would Apple decide to release an OS with virtually no software for it? Apple has a competent sales and marketing staff. They know that Apple wouldn't need something like Marklar unless Apple was on the brink of collapse and desperate. Do you have any proof that Marklar exists? Apple already has at least one major software update in the next year, and are removing OS 9 to reduce the problem of developing for two platforms. They don't need to and can't really afford to waste time on some half-baked idea. Where does Apple make money? Hardware, not software. They need to sell more G4's, not more copies of OS X. MS isn't collapsing because it has a monopoly and has the majority of the apps available. Marklar would have neither of those advantages and many, many more disadvantages. Yes, they need to pay for software development. What's the most effective way of doing that? Sell more computers and stuff that makes them a lot of money.

 

[kansaigaijin]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

 

[Sauron's Master]

Interesting...

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

That article is old and is comprised of mostly speculation, and quotes from alleged sources, and very little verifiable fact. In fact, it shoots itself in the foot several times when it admits to the fact that Marklar would have to have entire applications reprogrammed. This is after an immense amount of time spent on carbonization and soon, 64-bit applications. I seriously doubt any software company has that much resources, time, and energy to waste on that. They have OS X and PC versions already. They're not going to develop an Marklar version. I'd think they'd much rather work on 64 bit versions which might actually offer them an advantage.

 

[tgrundke]

Re: Re: mhz myth and mac users

I am always highly amused by those who make carpet statements such as "If Marklar goes to market, Apple will be dead," without making elaborations as to their rationale.

Marklar is a good opportunity for Apple, and if you think it's Apple's death knell, please elaborate.

Originally posted by Sauron's Master


I hope you were being sarcastic. Take Marklar to market? The instant Marklar goes to market, it means that Apple will collapse very soon. If it even exists, Marklar would be Apple's last resort plan to save itself. Would anyone even buy it? No programs would natively run in it without Apple having convert them. No drivers for external devices. Nothing. Just an Unix-like OS called OS X on a PC. I, and many other mac users, would probably abandon the Mac platform if Marklar is ever released because it represents the downfall of Apple and Mac OS on PPC not to mention the entire ideal of Apple and Macs being different from PC's.

 

[Sauron's Master]

Re: Re: Re: mhz myth and mac users

Originally posted by tgrundke
I am always highly amused by those who make carpet statements such as "If Marklar goes to market, Apple will be dead," without making elaborations as to their rationale.

Marklar is a good opportunity for Apple, and if you think it's Apple's death knell, please elaborate.

If you actually bothered to read my post(s), you would have seen my reasons. I am amused by people who never bother to actually the post and then make carper statements about their amusement about others. Read my posts, and answer this question: how is it a good opportunity?

 

[cubist]

The sub-$1K tower...

... could have a Sahara G3 processor, say at 1GHz; use PC-133 SDRAM; use regular IDE drives and 4X AGP video. It comes with a el cheapo video card but offer a lot of BTO upgrades. It comes with a CD-RW drive. iMovie 3 needs to burn VCDs out of the box.

The case needs to be simplified from the huge complexity of the MDD El Capitan.

The motherboard is simpler too. Just a single ATA bus, ethernet, firewire, 2 USBs, 2 PCI slots. Modem and airport optional. Keyboard, mouse and monitor all extra. The stock card has only a VGA connector.

Call it the cMac. Discontinue the old G3 iMac. I think Apple could make a profit selling it for $799, and I don't think it'd hurt sales of any other Apple machine at all.