Apple's Greatest Mistakes of All Time

[DigiCatRedux]

I certainly haven't used a Mac long enough to remember things like the Lisa, or Newton or that fabulous "Puck Mouse" (though I've see one... Uugly!)-
But I'll chime in on a couple things I think are "Apple Mistakes".

* No user-changeable iPod batterys. That goes for the iPhone too.
Granted, I can understand in the interest of keeping the form factor as slim as possible Why they sealed the batterys - but at the expense of being able to just toss in a fresh battery when you need it? I know some people don't care, but I find it annoying when my iPod runs out of juice, and I have to either A: stick it back into an outlet (good luck finding one of those on a mountain slope) or B: slap on one of those ugly 3rd party "Power Pack" boosters.
Don't even get me started on the whole "send us your iPod/iPhone back to Apple for battery replacement when it finally dies for a nominal fee. It'll take two weeks. Here's a cookie". Grrr.

* Apple TV. Sounded great when the first few tid-bits about it came out - now, to me it just sounds like a waste of money - and kind of smacks of the DIVX creation Best Buy came up with a few years ago, where content and what you can view on it is highly regulated. It certainly has its restrictions- and isn't enough of a machine to have me wanting one anytime soon.

* Nothing under a Grand. Aside from the "add-your own monitor/keyboard/etc" Mac Mini, right now Apple doesn't sell any model under a Thousand dollars. Not the Notebooks, not the iMac - nothing. Which to me is a shame, because I think Apple is missing a huge chunk of the marketplace that would buy a Mac - but that thousand dollar wall is too much for them to climb. It could be a great introduction for kids, or college students or anyone who likes the Mac - but only has a budget of say $600 to $800 bucks. So you throw out a few features - doesn't mean you can't build a quality machine for less than a Grand, that maybe doesn't do everything and isn't the fastest cat in the jungle - but it's more then decent and is solid & works well. Just sayin'.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It strikes me as kind of strange to say that Apple doesn't sell any Macs for under a grand, except for the Macs they do sell for under a grand.

 

[Tosser]

It strikes me as kind of strange to say that Apple doesn't sell any Macs for under a grand, except for the Macs they do sell for under a grand.

He he, it sure does. However, I think he means that they don't sell anything under grand, that works out of the box without you having to add the rest of the parts (keyboard, mouse and screen) in order to have it working.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

He he, it sure does. However, I think he means that they don't sell anything under grand, that works out of the box without you having to add the rest of the parts (keyboard, mouse and screen) in order to have it working.

It's still a ridiculous claim. Many PC makers don't sell computers that work right out of the box. Apple just don't have one for under a grand. So what?

 

[iGuardian]

* Nothing under a Grand. Aside from the "add-your own monitor/keyboard/etc" Mac Mini, right now Apple doesn't sell any model under a Thousand dollars.

With that logic, wouldn't most PC manufacturer's be selling their computers for over a grand?

 

[rdowns]

The under a grand criticism is a fair one. Apple does not sell any fully configured system for under a grand. The mini with an Apple monitor, KB and mouse is $1,296. For that, you get a whole 1GB of RAM, a whopping 80 GB hard drive and a lousy combo drive.

That said, Apple is shipping more computers than ever. Their prices are not hurting them as much as people think. As a stockholder, I say leave the low margin business to the others.

 

[204467]

It's still a ridiculous claim. Many PC makers don't sell computers that work right out of the box. Apple just don't have one for under a grand. So what?

Well, my HP laptop worked out of the box, and it's MSRP was $1,000 dollars. However, since it was on sale, I got it for $750. Plus, I think my sister's Compaq laptop was under a grand (though it's specs weren't as good as mine, since hers is a year older).

The under a grand criticism is a fair one. Apple does not sell any fully configured system for under a grand. The mini with an Apple monitor, KB and mouse is $1,296. For that, you get a whole 1GB of RAM, a whopping 80 GB hard drive and a lousy combo drive.

That said, Apple is shipping more computers than ever. Their prices are not hurting them as much as people think. As a stockholder, I say leave the low margin business to the others.

While I agree with you, just remember that your are not forced to use Apple's components when using the Mini. But I still agree that it's an underpowered machine for that much money.

 

[rdowns]

While I agree with you, just remember that your are not forced to use Apple's components when using the Mini. But I still agree that it's an underpowered machine for that much money.

Of course you can use other peripherals but if you don't own any, are you really going to buy a CPU from Apple and then run to Best Buy for a monitor, KB and mouse?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Well, my HP laptop worked out of the box, and it's MSRP was $1,000 dollars. However, since it was on sale, I got it for $750. Plus, I think my sister's Compaq laptop was under a grand (though it's specs weren't as good as mine, since hers is a year older).



While I agree with you, just remember that your are not forced to use Apple's components when using the Mini. But I still agree that it's an underpowered machine for that much money.

I guess you didn't read the part where I said, 'many' not 'all'.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Wow, it hardly takes even the drop of a hat to get this debate raging again.

I realize that for some, the Mac mini simply doesn't "count" as a sub-$1,000 Mac, though it clearly is a substantially less than $1,000 Mac, even with the addition of a monitor, keyboard and mouse. The basic logical contradiction being offered up here was my only point. Like it or not, the mini is Apple's entry in the under $1,000 market. It exists.

 

[kabunaru]

Apple's greatest mistake:
In my opinion, Apple's switch to Intel.
They should have stayed with PowerPC but still have the designs of the Intel Macs.

 

[rdowns]

Apple's greatest mistake:
In my opinion, Apple's switch to Intel.
They should have stayed with PowerPC but still have the designs of the Intel Macs.

PowerPC was dead. IBM was not able to deliver a higher clock speed chip as had been promised nor a low power version for the mythical PowerBook G5. Jobs really had no choice.

No surprise that Macs really took off after the Intel switch and being able to run Windows. It allowed millions to buy and use a Mac even if they needed to run Windows only software.

 

[kabunaru]

PowerPC was dead. IBM was not able to deliver a higher clock speed chip as had been promised nor a low power version for the mythical PowerBook G5. Jobs really had no choice.

No surprise that Macs really took off after the Intel switch and being able to run Windows. It allowed millions to buy and use a Mac even if they needed to run Windows only software.

Could not Apple just increase the speed (over-clock) of the G4 laptops or even make them Dual-core? Would not that even help in any way?

What about the G5s? Could not Apple just severely under-clock them for the use in the laptops?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Could not Apple just increase the speed (over-clock) of the G4 laptops or even make them Dual-core? Would not that even help in any way?

What about the G5s? Could not Apple just severely under-clock them for the use in the laptops?

No. No and no. Why would they do that when it would be easier to go to intel? It'd also be cheaper to the end user and it'd still be more powerful.

you can't just make a g4 dual core, they would have to redesign the chip and thus it would no longer be a g4. Underclocking the g5 would then have no advantages to the g4. There was no other choice for Apple. And if they did double up the cores they would need desktop grade motherboards, thus they would have to make their portable line muuuuch thicker. Since you don't know anything about processors why would you care if Apple switched to intel or not?

 

[204467]

Apple's greatest mistake:
In my opinion, Apple's switch to Intel.
They should have stayed with PowerPC but still have the designs of the Intel Macs.

I just don't get it; why do some people hate the Intel switch so much? It seems like it was one of the best moves Apple ever did.

Of course you can use other peripherals but if you don't own any, are you really going to buy a CPU from Apple and then run to Best Buy for a monitor, KB and mouse?

Well, if you know that you can use any and that Apple's peripherals are much more expensive than the competition for sometimes not much more than a pretty logo, I think the buyer would do that.

 

[kabunaru]

Since you don't know anything about processors why would you care if Apple switched to intel or not?

Because I do not want Apple to use almost the same hardware as PCs.

 

[204467]

Because I do not want Apple to use almost the same hardware as PCs.

And thus the flame war begins!

In the fanboy corner, we have kabunaru, facing off in a cage match supreme against the more liberal tuffluffjimmy. Let the betting begin.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Because I do not want Apple to use almost the same hardware as PCs.

Why not? A PC is a PC an Apple computer isn't any different other than the OS. You're saying you would want a slower, more expensive, less energy efficient machine just so you can say "I have a PPC processor, not an itnel. It makes my machine better because it's slower, more expensive and can't run as many OS's as your stupid intel machine."

And thus the flame war begins!

In the fanboy corner, we have kabunaru, facing off in a cage match supreme against the more liberal tuffluffjimmy. Let the betting begin.

 

[rdowns]

Because I do not want Apple to use almost the same hardware as PCs.

Do you think using Macs makes you cool or something?

I have news for you. Apple has used pretty much the same hardware as PC vendors for ages. It the OS, dude.

 

[kabunaru]

Do you think using Macs makes you cool or something?

No, I just prefer to be "different" than the other guys.

Did any other PCs use PowerPC processors when Apple used PowerPC? I am afraid no.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Do you think using Macs makes you cool or something?

I have news for you. Apple has used pretty much the same hardware as PC vendors for ages. It the OS, dude.

No, I just prefer to be "different" than the other guys.

And by that, Kabunaru, you meant, "Yes, rdowns, I am so pretentious that I would use a more expensive less efficient processor just to say I think I'm better than the average computer user. I would cut off my nose to spite my face too!"

 

[kabunaru]

And by that, Kabunaru, you meant, "Yes, rdowns, I am so pretentious that I would use a more expensive less efficient processor just to say I think I'm better than the average computer user. I would cut off my nose to spite my face too!"

Did you hear me? I said "different" not "better" or "worse".

 

[BigHungry04]

I would cut off my nose to spite my face too!"

Sounds like fun. Can I watch?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Did you hear me? I said "different" not "better" or "worse".

Well I guess it wouldn't be different it would just be worse. Since there are no pros to using PPC processors.

Sounds like fun. Can I watch?

You'll have to ask Kabunaru.

 

[sra. Aguirre]

USB on MBP

I'm sure it has already been mentioned in this thread but it so annoys me that I am taking the risk of possible beheading, by mentioning it again (and again if I have to!)
WHY O WHY are there only 2 USB slots on the MBP 15"?
It's a shame that for the price I paid I still have to get extra equipment in order to have more USB entries...

Shame shame shame...

Love my MBP though and would not change it for any other notebook