Apple's Problem No. 1

[crassusad44]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple's Problem No. 1

Originally posted by ftaok
not to mention MSN Money Portfolio.

Don't tell me you trust M$ to handle your money

Actually, the problem lies on bad web-designers who don't do their job, and don't use open standards. This IS a real problem, and also one of the reasons why M$ is in court.

Personally I'm willing to sacrefice MSN Money Portfolio for the ease of use of my totally cool Apple Macintosh!

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by hobie


Well, I am an ex-PeeCee user, and though it was a rather slow 700mhz duron I could work with all apps I wanted SIMULTANEOUSLY (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop, Outlook/Entourage, iTunes/Winamp, IE, and some other stuff). It virtually never felt sluggish! Try this with 10.1.4 on an iBook 500 and you'll see the difference.

And to subtend your thread: Even without comparing PC and Apple performances I'm not happy at all with the current iBook speeds! I want a snappy system even with 15+ apps opened at once. At least when some of them are hidden! And this is what Apple doesn't give to me now. If it's possible with 1ghz, then let it be so. But if they need 5ghz for that, then they should quickly go there!

I mean, single tasking was OS9 and thus G4s may have burned wintels, but they definitely don't in OS X's multitasking environment.

However, workflow is still far better on my tiny icebook than on every windos system. Even with a bit sluggishment

OK, first there is nothing slow about a Duron 700. That is actually zippy little Proc. Now, what OS were you running? How much memory? Throw winxp on there and have 128 MB and you will see a system crawl. The iBook 500 is an older machine with a sub-par bus system. Get the iBook 600, or even better the new 700, and you will see a difference. Right now, just for fun, I have word, excel, powerpoint, IE, Mozilla, OmniWeb, System Prefs, Terminal, Net Info, Quicken, and MSN messenger open, and I can go back and forth with almost no wait.

Also, was your Duron a notebook, or desktop? And no offense, but to have 15+ apps open at one time is just a system resource waste. Open what you need. As far as going to 5Ghz, wake up dude. You know that isn't happening anytime soon. Go to CompUSA and play with a new iBook, or better yet, get a PowerBook.

 

[ftaok]

getting back on topic

I think that if you asked a regular joe (who's about to purchase a computer) if he'd consider buying a Mac, he'd say no. He would say this because (in order of probability):

a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple's Problem No. 1

Originally posted by crassusad44
Don't tell me you trust M$ to handle your money

Actually, the problem lies on bad web-designers who don't do their job, and don't use open standards. This IS a real problem, and also one of the reasons why M$ is in court.

Personally I'm willing to sacrefice MSN Money Portfolio for the ease of use of my totally cool Apple Macintosh!

I've since switched to Quicken, but the Investor portfolio was free (and I'm cheap).

But the compatibility issue goes deeper than MSN Portfolio. Even Yahoo Media content won't run on a Mac. I'm not sure why, but Apple should be looking into it and integrating it into the OS.

 

[Backtothemac]

Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by ftaok
I think that if you asked a regular joe (who's about to purchase a computer) if he'd consider buying a Mac, he'd say no. He would say this because (in order of probability):

a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Yes, that is true, and so are these.

A. The average person in the US is overweight.
B. They have what is it 2.5 children.
C. They have high school educations.
D. They don't vote in elections.

Do we really want the average joe? I hate to be an elitest, but I like having users who are intelligent, and who know enough about life to understand the difference in being a clone, and being original.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

or better yet, get a PowerBook.

The NEW TiBooks ROCK! The L3 (1MB DDR) makes a huge difference in system performance. Granted, I did pump up the memory to 768MB, but still. With 768 I can have just about all my OS X native apps open at one time and not have the system bog down. That's a LOT of software to have running at a single time too.

I do practice smart running though, having only to applications I need running at one time. If I don't need to have Illustrator running, I don't launch it. Oh, and I DON'T use m$ orfice... AppleWorks 6.x does everything I need it to, plus it has compatibility with enough of the orfice apps for my needs.

 

[eyelikeart]

I don't think it's any of the options in the poll...

basically...Apple's market share is mainly the fact that people don't understand Macs enough to buy them...

but we've been seeing much more of this turning around lately...

I honestly don't think this is going to fly much...but whatever...

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


The NEW TiBooks ROCK!

Oh, no doubt man. The thing that just pi$$es me off is when people bitch about the Mac, and what Apple needs to do to make the Mac a success. Look, it is a success. The company has survied some of the worst economic times in the country, and made it through when Microsoft was stealing everything from everyone. They have 4 billion in the bank and almost no debt, a great user base, and an awsome future with X.

The thing that I find funny is most of the average joes that complain about the Mac have never even seen one in person. I bet most of the people here that Bi*ch about them have never played with a current model.

Sick, really friggin sick.

 

[hobie]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

OK, first there is nothing slow about a Duron 700. That is actually zippy little Proc. Now, what OS were you running? How much memory? Throw winxp on there and have 128 MB and you will see a system crawl. The iBook 500 is an older machine with a sub-par bus system. Get the iBook 600, or even better the new 700, and you will see a difference. Right now, just for fun, I have word, excel, powerpoint, IE, Mozilla, OmniWeb, System Prefs, Terminal, Net Info, Quicken, and MSN messenger open, and I can go back and forth with almost no wait.

Also, was your Duron a notebook, or desktop? And no offense, but to have 15+ apps open at one time is just a system resource waste. Open what you need. As far as going to 5Ghz, wake up dude. You know that isn't happening anytime soon. Go to CompUSA and play with a new iBook, or better yet, get a PowerBook.

You're right, a 700 duron isn't that bad, but compared to a 1.667 Athlon it is! My configuration was win2k, 256meg ram and a 32meg geforce1 desktop. And it was fast.
Now I have my iBook 500 (tweaked system bus to 100), 384 megs of ram and an 8meg ati rage. It is fast as well, but NOT when hardcore multitasking.
Compare this: playing mp3s on the duron took about 5% proc time, doing it on the ibook takes about 30-40 proc time! thats frustrating cuz when i want to work AND play mp3s it's rather impossible (at least it was before i tweaked the system bus).
I also tried Jaguar and though it was better it still didn't excite me.

Hey, if you have some bucks left then go on and get me a tibook. Guess this will be real fast!

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Yes, that is true, and so are these.

A. The average person in the US is overweight.
B. They have what is it 2.5 children.
C. They have high school educations.
D. They don't vote in elections.

Do we really want the average joe? I hate to be an elitest, but I like having users who are intelligent, and who know enough about life to understand the difference in being a clone, and being original.

Do I want the average joe to be a Mac user?? Hmmm, if it means more software choices, lower prices, more peripherals, etc, then HELL YES.

I don't care what kinda of idiot users use Macs, as long as the market share grows. As long as there's a steady supply of software and hardware that I can use, then I'm happy.

I think this goes back to the Apple is to computers as BMW is cars analogy. There's one big flaw in that analogy. If you equate gas with software and roads with hardware, then the analogy fails. Since BMW use the same gas (make sure it's premium) and drive on the same roads. Macs don't use the same software (although they're compatible for the most part) and they don't support all of the same hardware.

But, I digress, if more "joe" users pick Mac, then I'll be happy.

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by hobie


You're right, a 700 duron isn't that bad, but compared to a 1.667 Athlon it is! My configuration was win2k, 256meg ram and a 32meg geforce1 desktop. And it was fast.
Now I have my iBook 500 (tweaked system bus to 100), 384 megs of ram and an 8meg ati rage. It is fast as well, but NOT when hardcore multitasking.
Compare this: playing mp3s on the duron took about 5% proc time, doing it on the ibook takes about 30-40 proc time! thats frustrating cuz when i want to work AND play mp3s it's rather impossible (at least it was before i tweaked the system bus).
I also tried Jaguar and though it was better it still didn't excite me.

Hey, if you have some bucks left then go on and get me a tibook. Guess this will be real fast!

Ok. I understand what you are saying about the iBook 500, but here is the problem. Compare Apples to Apples when possible. Now I know that we are really comparing Apples and Cowpies, but here goes.

Your system was a desktop. That means ATA 100, and probably a 7,200 RPM drive. The iBook is ATA 66, and 4,800 RPM. Much difference here. Also, 8 meg rage and 32 meg G-force is a huge difference. Just trying to point that out.

 

[AlphaTech]

Backtothemac, it was brought up in a discussion I had with a die-hard peecee owner (guy at work) about how all those people that have been claiming Apple was about to go under. They have one of the few business models that shouldn't work... but for some odd reason does, and does really well. With all their oopsies, they should have gone under, but instead, they thrive. Yes, they are not as large as m$ is, but then again, who would want to be that bloated?? Apple is doing a great job at keeping the Mac faithful, and even making some converts from the peecee world that are tired of m$'s practices.

Apple has survived bad times both in the country and within their own company. Some of remember the years where there were all those numbered Mac systems, with so many models and speeds and such it was tough to pick the right one for you. Then Jobs came back, and made things better. He cut the dead-wood and came out with the iMac... the rest is history.

I look forward to the expo's to see what Apple releases in the way of both hardware and software. I have a perfectly good system with my TiBook, but I will be wanting to get a new tower by MWSF. I don't NEED one, but I will probably want, and get, one anyway. If they alter the enclosure design, or slip a G5 in, that will make the decision all that much easier.

 

[crassusad44]

Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by ftaok
a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

This is exactly the kinds of myths Apple are trying to eliminate. Look at these pages, and you'll see. Don't bash them for not trying!

http://www.apple.com/easier
http://www.apple.com/myth

We all now the Mac is a better platform. Now go tell the world!

 

[dunnr]

YO, can you say M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
Apple needs some slick commercials, people will buy
anything that is presented properly.

 

[AlphaTech]

Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by ftaok
Do I want the average joe to be a Mac user?? Hmmm, if it means more software choices, lower prices, more peripherals, etc, then HELL YES.

You are kidding yourself if you think higher sales numbers will drive down the end cost of a Mac system. Don't expect them to drop, unless Apple is coming out with something major and wants to clear out inventory. When the new one gets announce, the prices will be back where they were before the announcement. DON'T expect the tower prices to go lower (or much lower ie $100-$200) then where they are now.

Consider this... when the iMac's really started to fly off the shelves, did Apple drop the prices the next year??? Ummmm.. noooooo. What they DID do, though, was offer better performance and other innovations/improvements in the line at the SAME price. I would expect the same thing to happen for the current G4 iMac, yes, they MIGHT go back down to what they were before the LCD prices went up, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. I would imagine that they will see speed bumps at MWNY, as will almost all of the Mac systems.

What those bumps will be, is anyone's guess (and it is just a guess until the keynote is over).

 

[hobie]

Hey Backtothemac,

why should i stick with comparing macs with themselves? You don't compare BMWs to Porsches, don't you? I think in case of power it is always best to compare with the best (at least in similar price regions).

And as I told you, my desktop wasn't really fast. It was ATA66 and a 5400 RPM disk. So not real much faster then my current system. The geforce was faster of course, but then again everybody here says any G3 burns a P3. So I think there's a balance now.

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by crassusad44


This is exactly the kinds of myths Apple are trying to eliminate. Look at these pages, and you'll see. Don't bash them for not trying!

http://www.apple.com/easier
http://www.apple.com/myth

We all now the Mac is a better platform. Now go tell the world!

I'm not bashing Apple at all. I've seen those pages on the web site and out in real life. They're trying, I know.

But the point of this topic was about Apple's Market Share and what the main problem was. I think that my point about what the average joe know about the Mac is completely valid. And that's what Apple has to hurdle to get the converts on our side.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Ok. I understand what you are saying about the iBook 500, but here is the problem. Compare Apples to Apples when possible. Now I know that we are really comparing Apples and Cowpies, but here goes.

Your system was a desktop. That means ATA 100, and probably a 7,200 RPM drive. The iBook is ATA 66, and 4,800 RPM. Much difference here. Also, 8 meg rage and 32 meg G-force is a huge difference. Just trying to point that out.

Don't you really mean ATA66, 4200 rpm?? There are only two spindle speeds in 2.5" hard drives... 4200rpm and 5400rpm.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by hobie
And as I told you, my desktop wasn't really fast. It was ATA66 and a 5400 RPM disk. So not real much faster then my current system. The geforce was faster of course, but then again everybody here says any G3 burns a P3. So I think there's a balance now.

And AMD beats intel senseless...

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by AlphaTech
You are kidding yourself if you think higher sales numbers will drive down the end cost of a Mac system. Don't expect them to drop, unless Apple is coming out with something major and wants to clear out inventory. When the new one gets announce, the prices will be back where they were before the announcement. DON'T expect the tower prices to go lower (or much lower ie $100-$200) then where they are now.

But if the Mac had a 25 to 30% market share, Apple could (conceivably) upgrade the lines more often. It's all about supply and demand. Or are you suggesting that Apple doesn't follow the rules of economics. If you have more buyers, then you can move more product. More product allows you to buy components in bulk. Motorola/IBM would have more money to devote to R&D so that faster chips would be more available. It's a complete circle.

Now, if you're suggesting that Apple would just pocket the extra margin, that's a possiblity. But I think that you'd start to lose your market base in that scenario.

 

[AlphaTech]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by ftaok
But if the Mac had a 25 to 30% market share, Apple could (conceivably) upgrade the lines more often. It's all about supply and demand. Or are you suggesting that Apple doesn't follow the rules of economics. If you have more buyers, then you can move more product. More product allows you to buy components in bulk. Motorola/IBM would have more money to devote to R&D so that faster chips would be more available. It's a complete circle.

I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.

The main flaw I see with your statement, is how is Apple to get to the high market share??? People think that high MHz/GHz numbers matter. We are rappidly reaching a point where more speed will not really matter. The user becomes the slow down on the computer, the human interface will become the bottleneck soon (if not already).

As for supply and demand... motorola supplies the G4 chips, but doesn't listen to Apple's demands for faster (stable) chips. I don't see Apple as the reason, but motorola and them being unwilling to license the Altivec technology to IBM. I would wager that IBM could pump out faster chips at closer intervals, if they were allowed to. Considering how IBM's relationship with Apple recently got a boost. ALL new TiBooks have IBM hard drives in them. I wonder what the new iBooks have inside.

 

[SilvorX]

i would have to say price because many of the macs i want (g4 imac for example) are way out of my price range and 2 expensive for me, but then again the normal imac has a perfect price but lacks the stuff i wanted for a computer (internal dvd drive, lcd monitor (not that big for me tho) or 17" screen)

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.

The main flaw I see with your statement, is how is Apple to get to the high market share??? People think that high MHz/GHz numbers matter. We are rappidly reaching a point where more speed will not really matter. The user becomes the slow down on the computer, the human interface will become the bottleneck soon (if not already).

As for supply and demand... motorola supplies the G4 chips, but doesn't listen to Apple's demands for faster (stable) chips. I don't see Apple as the reason, but motorola and them being unwilling to license the Altivec technology to IBM. I would wager that IBM could pump out faster chips at closer intervals, if they were allowed to. Considering how IBM's relationship with Apple recently got a boost. ALL new TiBooks have IBM hard drives in them. I wonder what the new iBooks have inside.

Alpha, you're mixing up arguements here. This post was about what was the main problem causing Apple's low market share. If you had seen any of my previous posts, you'd see that I feel that the speed issue is very low on my "reasons list".

Then someone else mentioned that they'd rather keep the market share low than have a bunch of idiots using Macs.

I replied by saying that if Apple had more users, it would result in more software and hardware for Macs as well as lower prices.

YOU said that I "was kidding myself" if I thought that more market share would result in lower prices.

I rebuttaled that "if" the Mac had a 25% share, then they would be able to produce faster machines on a more rapid pace. This is because Apple would be buying more PPC chips from MOT/IBM. MOT/IBM could then use the extra money to dump into R&D to produce faster chips.

You say that the main flaw in my arguement is how Apple can get 25% share. That was never my point at all.

And yes, I have been keeping up. I know that MOT has been going slowly at MOT. But how do you know that MOT is unwilling to license Altivec to IBM? Perhaps IBM is unwilling to agree not to selling chips to people like Cisco.

One last thing. Where are IBM's superfast chips? Last I checked, they were still at 700mhz.

 

[wrylachlan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by AlphaTech


I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.

I don't disagree that if Motorola would release chips faster Apple would incorporate them into macs faster. However there is a point to the "market share" arguement in the fact that R & D budget is a percentage of total sales. So greater market share = more chips purchased from moto = more money in moto's pockets = more R & D money = chips released faster.

 

[ftaok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: getting back on topic

Originally posted by wrylachlan


I don't disagree that if Motorola would release chips faster Apple would incorporate them into macs faster. However there is a point to the "market share" arguement in the fact that R & D budget is a percentage of total sales. So greater market share = more chips purchased from moto = more money in moto's pockets = more R & D money = chips released faster.

That's what I said.