Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's PC Sales Fall Behind ASUS as Buyers Await Next-Generation MacBook Pro and Other New Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That palace will be a monument to all that went wrong at Apple. It is the 90's all over again.
Not to mention he's robbing the company blind. All these share buybacks which increase the amount of the worth of his stock. And all he's done is put out a Watch that seems to be collecting dust on the nightstand.
I still can't believe Steve left the company to be ran by a numbers corporate guy instead of a "make in the garage" guy. We'd have new products by now.
Instead all we get is 3 different sizes of an iPad in a year, a small iPhone that comes in a shell from 2013, and can't be bothered with a proper Mac upgrade.
This is just sad. I just fried an SSD in my Alienware... New one on the way. My MacBook Pro screen has totally fallen apart. I work through a cloudy screen everyday. I am still using it but need to upgrade ... Yesterday!!! I am probably going to pull the trigger on a 17"+ 64GB laptop and just get used to hauling the weight around again. I loved the MacBook Pro, but the only thing I can get is what I bought in 2012. That is over 100 years in technology time.
Sucks, I really liked being able to code both Windows and iOS on the same machine. The least Apple could do is let us run macOS on a Windows VM.
Sucks, I really liked being able to code both Windows and iOS on the same machine. The least Apple could do is let us run macOS on a Windows VM.
The article says roughly 4 years for MAC and 3 for the mobile devices. But that isn't saying they are designed to last that long. They have to pick an endpoint somewhere, and a lot of people do replace computers every 4 years or even more often whether it is working or not. Computer tech is slowing down. The performance gap between a 2013 machine and a 2016 machine (non-apple) really isn't that big compared to the performance gap between a 2000 machine and a 2003 machine. I'm still rocking my mid 2012 cMBP which I have added a 1TB SSD to. The only thing I really wish it had was a retina screen. I probably won't buy a new laptop for another 3 years at this rate anyhow.
I could call selling years old technology at inflated prices to unsuspecting customers who don't know any better, but are trying to be "in" a lot of things, but impressive wouldn't be one of them.
Tim Cook says to you: "what did Phil told you guys in 2013? Current Mac Pro is the best thing for a decade." (Tim giggles)
[doublepost=1468363988][/doublepost]
He must have been busy catering to Chinese government.
It´s incredible how consumerist shout without any argument... Despite irregular year over year updates, Apple has been very punctual in the all new generation changes... 4 years.
I Understand that the actual Macbook Pro could have newer available hardware... The all new it´s coming and will make us all happy!
I Understand that the actual Macbook Pro could have newer available hardware... The all new it´s coming and will make us all happy!
Compared to 2000 & 2001 when we got a new G4 every 6 months....4 years seems a bit.......long.
I'm writing this on a 2012-era MacMini I bought right before the Great MacMini Nerfing of 2014. It's mighty peculiar that the computer I could have gotten off the shelf four years ago has better much benchmarks than the what I'd get off the shelf today.
Unnerf the Mac Mini!
Unnerf the Mac Mini!
...Except their sales of Macs, due to resting on their laurels.
Building their spaceship in priority #1, apparently.
Last edited:
Well, Apple doesn't make PCs, they make Macs, so their PC sales are bound to fall behind...
PC = Personal Computer
Mac is a Personal Computer
But yah, you were trying to be snarky!
[doublepost=1468367597][/doublepost]
Odd! I don't have any issues with the "user friendliness" whatever that means to you. It's pretty rock solid and I think it is a great upgrade from Windows 7. Each experience is their own.
No they don't. Average consumers do no buy on internal specs. How many average consumers go in to an Apple Store and ask for the spec sheet?
Some people on this forum think average consumers are editing 4K movies while simultaneously cutting albums with a hundred synth tracks in Logic and editing photos with a hundred layers in Photoshop. What world are you living in?
The average consumer is happy if they can use Office/Google Docs, Facebook, Skype, Amazon and YouTube and manage their photos. That's why the overall PC market is in decline year-on-year. Computers reached the point of being good enough for average consumers years ago.
Development, video editing, 3D modelling, photo editing and print-production are niche markets
Nice post. I admit I agree with some but not all of what you say. I tend to believe that the average person who walks into an Apple store wants to do all the things you say and are not that savvy. Apple still has a bit of a fan base and reputation based on their long ago desire to build excellent systems and be forward thinking. Sadly, the latter is no longer really part of the Apple market scheme but people still believe Apple is the same Apple of yore. Where we disagree in a way is about niche markets. Apple at one time was very interested in these markets but again, the market scheme now puts them last on the list.
As technology changes, tech-culture (emogis, twitter, etc.) and other items come into play that alter the use of computers and hand devices and I would be remiss if I didn't mention cloud services. I think it is sad that with all the $$$ Apple has it chose to abandon those "niche" markets or only make a tepid appearance. I think part of the slow down of home computers is simply because the market is fairly saturated and many hand devices seem able to do the minimum of those computers (which is partially your point).
I'll just say that I wish (though not going to happen) Apple did appreciate more the less noticed markets out there and it was reflected in their offerings for - gamers, professionals and higher end home 'systems.' Apple could have easily have altered the Mac Mini to be a bit more robust and then market it for multiple purposes including 'advanced' home entertainment, core for controlling home electronics, lower end game machine, Mini+Apple storage for a NAS unit etc.
As for the Mac Pro, it was replaced by the Mac Mini Pro and while expensive and somewhat useful, it is counter to all that made the real* Mac Pros worthwhile computers.
I'm with you, mate. Honestly, I don't know why I bother with this forum sometimes. There's a vocal minority who are self-entitled whingers who are clearly out of touch with everyday realities about the average user's drivers.
The Mac has never outperformed PCs in terms of performance per price. If you want to obsess about specs then build a box of your choosing and fap over your geekbench scores.
As I've mentioned earlier. Intel is a big part of the problem. They are hitting Moore's Law hard. Their costs and prices are escalating and their CPU performance is only marginally better year-on-year. They have supply issues with Skylake chips (with Iris Pro GPUs). Most of the companies people are citing with Skylake models are shipping CPUs with HD 520 graphics which is underwhelming.
Meanwhile, average consumers' needs are well met by Haswell. Not everyone buys on specs. Not everyone wants or indeed can afford a new computer every year (or every two years). I see no reason to upgrade from my Sandy Bridge Mac mini. I actually have a Skylake-powered Lenovo and honestly, the performances differences are not the massive improvement over my older Mac mini in real-world usage that everyone seems to think.
Apple's biggest sin is not dropping prices as the product line ages. Around the world, that's really starting to hurt because the US dollar is rising against most currencies. They want $2000 AUD for an entry-level rMB and rMBP. Drop those prices and people will buy; yes, even those glacier slow Haswell-based models you're all hating on.
[doublepost=1468373387][/doublepost]
Cheers. I'm no hater and have been an Apple customer for years. I really wish the company lifted its game and remember those days when niche markets (I belong to a couple of them) kept the company afloat back when things were grim.
Yes, I should have considered hand-help devices in more detail. They've honestly transformed the way we do computing and a phone/phablet is a remarkably capable and convenient device.
As for cloud services, I've big a big user of them: from Dropbox to iCloud to DigitalOcean VPSs and I agree Apple could do a lot improve on their Cloud Service.
I'm a big fan of the Mac mini - I love that little guy. So much potential in one little box. The Skull Canyon Nuc shows what the device could have become with love and dedication - Apple have show the Mini nothing but contempt.
Last edited:
Are you serious? There were loads of times that Apple waited for Motorola to get their sh&it together in the G4 period. So much so they had to jump to IBM for the G5s. Then we had a couple of years of "where is the G5 PowerBook" rumours prior to Apple jumping ship again to Intel.
Too true, people forget their history. It's ironic now (perhaps inevitable) that Intel are starting to hit the same wall that Motorola and IBM hit. The same whingers clamoring for new Intel-models every year will cry blue murder when Apple replaces Intel with it's own Ax chips. Be careful what you wish for.
Besides, who the hell wants to buy a new computer every 6 months?
Put out decent hardware and sales will come. It's not Rocket Science.
The Mini could be the hottest computer on the market if they would stop neuterizing the hardware.
The iMac hasn't been changed in years.
Get off the stick, Cook
The Mini could be the hottest computer on the market if they would stop neuterizing the hardware.
The iMac hasn't been changed in years.
Get off the stick, Cook
I totally agree with this part. And I'm totally with you, I would be okay buying the slightly older generation of intel CPU's if the prices werent that high.
I know not everyone is a spec reader, but those that are can see the hideous disparity between what what Apple is charging in Oz today compared to the competition. Granted, Apple has always had their luxury tax, but back 5 years ago when shopping for a laptop, the 'specs to price' ratio was far closer to the competition. My 2011 MBP was really just a smidgen more than the equivalent windows laptop with deducated graphics and similar specs. I was happy to pay the extra for the build quality and no hassles when running OSX (otherwise I wouldve just hackintoshed like I always do).
But look at their 15" MBP now, which STARTS at AU$3099, and goes up to AU$3799 for the dGPU model. Then compare it to todays competition. Its nothing like just 5 years ago, it is another league of money gouging and living in a distorted reality field. Being a few years out of date just adds even more insult to injury. There are consumers who will buy it sure. But I think once you put it all into perspective, Apple is charging far more for far less now, and as a consumer I find it insulting. I'm not saying they should compete directly with the Wintel market, they never have - but the Apple tax has become ludiciously high. In the end all we can do is vote with our wallets.
Exactly, I didn't mention the 15 inch model because my posts have been mostly directed at consumers who are the larger market and for whom the current line up is adequate if over priced.
The 15 inch models are clearly the Pro machines of the line up and Pros do look at specs. In that context, I agree whole-heartedly that Pros who need a dGPU are getting royally screwed.
Personally, if I fell into the category of needing that kind of power and I needed a dGPU, I wouldn't buy a laptop regardless. The Price-per-performance is woeful compared to a tower. Too bad Apple doesn't make those any more but as many have discussed on this thread, most professionals who need that kind of power, jumped ship to Windows or Linux years ago.
I'm lucky (or perhaps cursed) that my professional needs can be met by Apple's current line up. That said, I do all my professional work on Linux and only use macOS for Scrivener, Photos (which I hate) and iCloud services.
Clearly people can't be bothered to check facts. Here they are starting with the G4 until the current Mac Pro. It shows the introduction date, model, revision (not Apples revision # but a mention of everytime there was a change in the line) and time in between. Shall we:
August 31, 1999 Power Mac G4 Yikes! Introduced
December 1999 Power Mac G4 AGP Graphics (4 Months)
February 16, 2000 Power Mac G4 AGP Graphics Rev 2 (2 Months)
July 19, 2000 Power Mac G4 AGP Graphics Rev 3 (4 Months)
January 9, 2001 Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet (6 Months)
July 18, 2001 Power Mac G4 QuickSilver Rev 1 (6 Months)
January 28, 2002 Power Mac G4 QuickSilver Rev 2 (6 Months)
August 13, 2002 Power Mac G4 MDD Rev 1 (7 Months)
January 28, 2003 Power Mac G4 MDD Rev 2 (5 Months)
June 23, 2003 Power Mac G5 Rev 1 (5 Months)
November 2003 Power Mac G5 Rev 2 (5 Months)
June 2004 Power Mac G5 Rev 3 (7 Months)
October 2004 Power Mac G5 Rev 4 (4 Months)
April 2005 Power Mac G5 Rev 5 (6 Months)
October 2005 Power Mac G5 Rev 6 (6 Months)
August 2006 Mac Pro (9 Months)
January 2008 Mac Pro Rev 2 (1 Year 5 Months)
March 3, 2009 Mac Pro Rev 3 (1 Year 2 months)
August 9, 2010 Mac Pro Rev 4 (1 Year 5 Months)
June 11, 2012 Mac Pro Rev 5 (1 Year 10 Months)
December 19, 2013 Mac Pro Rev 6 (1 Year 6 Months)
At present current time has been 2 Years 7 Months between revisions. Pathetic.
HISTORY would prove that the time in between revisions increased when they switched to Intel. Clearly IBM and Motorola were moving things along a lot faster. If you look a little closer into current affairs you will see that the Power chip from IBM blows Intels performance out of the water. So what did we learn here? PPC based Macs were revised a lot more than the Intel garbage. It is true that the G5 was not going to work in a laptop, but that was because IBM was not interested in perusing it. If you look it up however (I'm not doing anymore homework for you), you will see the G4 PowerBooks & iBooks followed a similar release cycle.
Agreed 100%, everyone listen to jkichline. Thanks for your post.
Apple is quietly killing it on PCs, they probably make 50x per-unit profit compared to other manufacturers.
I am glad Apple is holding off MBP updates until there's a meaningful improvement to offer. They are resisting a certain type of incrementalism; the same incrementalism people sense and are already complaining about with iPhone 7. The wait shows confidence and restraint.
Thanks, interests facts and interpretation. No need to be snippy though, I appreciate and respect your points.
The reason for the change to Intel was the laptop line was still stuck in G4 error and G5's were no-where in sight due to heat issues. Was Apple's laptop release updates as frequent as that in the PowerPC days. Apple knew their future was in portable devices.
Also, I think I can explain in part that rapid fire approach with the PowerPC lines:
1. Some of those revisions were to fix hardware defects. G4 and G5s had their fare share of these.
2. Apple was finding its feet again and felt it had to try new things and catch up to the PC after the dark days of the 90s. This was the era of Job's return and the beginning's of Ive's rise.
3. Don't forget too the transition to OS X from the classic days which added more overhead.
4. Peripheral component technology ( ie. GPUs, bus speed, I/O standards) changed rapidly
That era saw the decline of floppies, serial ports, IDE, SCSI, USB1.0, Firewire 400, AGP and several older Apple proprietary protocols.
This was changing much faster than it does today. Today, we've put much more functionality onto the CPU die and the industry has settled on USB3 and Thunderbolt and that's been stable for the last 5 years. Even a change in front-side bus warranted a new revision where today, we've got DMA directly talking to RAM.
Also, CPU technology it self was moving much quicker then than it does today. Intel today are hitting the wall. It's costing them more and more to advanced and the returns on performance are marginal.
5. Apple no longer give a damn about desktops but back in the early 2000s, laptops had not yet reached the dominant form factor. The G4 was very likely their bread and butter and so it warranted their attention. They still catered to creative professional as their biggest market and by and large, creative professionals back then used towers.
The Mac Pro by contrast has never had this status and it shows in your own research. It debuted when the Tower was already in its twilight years. By 2005, laptops were outselling desktops.
Last edited: