Apple's Problem No. 1

[Backtothemac]

Few things.....

Alpha, dead friggin on the money.

SilvorX, I thought that you were not going to post anymore

Hobie, Actually, yes, I do compare BMW's to BMW's. To compare them to Porsche's would be stupid. They are totally differnet vehicles with totally different existances. BMW, luxary sedans, Porsche, sports cars....

Apples to Apples friend not Apples to Cowpies.

Ftoak. No, you miss the point. If Apple had 25 -30% of the market share, then they would do it the same way now. Keep you machine lasting longer, keep you happier, and thus a repeat customer. That is one of the things about Intel that pi$$es people off is they by a system in January, and by March it is 400 MHZ behind. Bad buisness model = Intel. Good buisness model = Apple.

 

[AlphaTech]

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

Originally posted by ftaok
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.

Moto refused to license the Altivec tech to IBM... IBM wanted it, but moto made it impossible. That was posted before, as well as in news articles. If you dig enough, you can find them.

IBM has been listed as having G3 chips at 1GHz (also in news articles online)... Just because Apple is only using the 700MHz doesn't mean that IBM can't give them faster ones at the dop of a hat.

Moto would NOT be able to dictate to IBM that they would have to sell chips to any company. IBM would sell them to Apple, since they would want them. If moto wants to sell chips to cisco, let them. Moto telling IBM that they 'have to' sell chips to a third company would be like Ford telling an engine maker that they HAVE TO sell this model engine to these companies (not divisions of Ford but other car companies). Not gonna happen.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Few things.....

Alpha, dead friggin on the money.

SilvorX, I thought that you were not going to post anymore

Hobie, Actually, yes, I do compare BMW's to BMW's. To compare them to Porsche's would be stupid. They are totally differnet vehicles with totally different existances. BMW, luxary sedans, Porsche, sports cars....

Apples to Apples friend not Apples to Cowpies.

Ftoak. No, you miss the point. If Apple had 25 -30% of the market share, then they would do it the same way now. Keep you machine lasting longer, keep you happier, and thus a repeat customer. That is one of the things about Intel that pi$$es people off is they by a system in January, and by March it is 400 MHZ behind. Bad buisness model = Intel. Good buisness model = Apple.

B2TM,

I don't think I missed the point at all. If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years? Hell no. They would want users to upgrade every 2-3 years so that they could maintain their market share. There's a finite number of computer users out there and the trick is to keep them coming back for more. You have to keep coming out with faster and better computers to maintain your share.

And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Besides Apple isn't competing against Intel. They have different markets.

 

[ftaok]

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

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Moto refused to license the Altivec tech to IBM... IBM wanted it, but moto made it impossible. That was posted before, as well as in news articles. If you dig enough, you can find them.

IBM has been listed as having G3 chips at 1GHz (also in news articles online)... Just because Apple is only using the 700MHz doesn't mean that IBM can't give them faster ones at the dop of a hat.

Moto would NOT be able to dictate to IBM that they would have to sell chips to any company. IBM would sell them to Apple, since they would want them. If moto wants to sell chips to cisco, let them. Moto telling IBM that they 'have to' sell chips to a third company would be like Ford telling an engine maker that they HAVE TO sell this model engine to these companies (not divisions of Ford but other car companies). Not gonna happen.

I'm not gonna ask you to find those articles, I can dig around after work.

About IBM's Sahara chip. If you look in IBM's press releases, you'll see that a 1ghz chip (G3) won't be ready to ship until later this year. They said that they would start at 700mhz in early 2002 and eventually hit 1ghz. Certainly not at "a drop of the hat".

About MOT dictating who IBM could sell to. I was saying that if MOT were to license Altivec to IBM, MOT would want assurances that IBM would not sell Altivec enhanced chips to anyone but Apple. To allow IBM to sell Altivec chips to MOT's main customer would be unadvisable.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years?

Actually, Apple would let you sit on the system you have for as long as you want. They will try and entice you to buy a newer one, but will not bully you into it. How many blue and white, and beige G3 systems are still out there and in active use??? Answer: Most, if not all, of them. How about peecee's of the same age???

And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Apple has extreme customer loyalty. Apple also has a very good customer support model, which accounts for why so many people are repeat customers.

Intel will only be able to 'crush' AMD through unfair business practices, which they have already started doing. I hope that the DOJ jumps on them for this, so that AMD isn't stiffled due to a giant company wanting all of the pie. Yes, AMD may not have the same market share as intel, but as most people that make their own peecee's will tell you, they offer a better product for less money.

 

[AlphaTech]

ftaok, here is the article dated from October 15, 2001 announcing the 1GHz G3 from IBM.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Actually, Apple would let you sit on the system you have for as long as you want. They will try and entice you to buy a newer one, but will not bully you into it. How many blue and white, and beige G3 systems are still out there and in active use??? Answer: Most, if not all, of them. How about peecee's of the same age???

I agree. But the best way to keep market share is to get your users to upgrade more frequently.

Apple has extreme customer loyalty. Apple also has a very good customer support model, which accounts for why so many people are repeat customers.

I also agree. If only they could get this loyal base to upgrade more often. That'll help out tremendously.

Intel will only be able to 'crush' AMD through unfair business practices, which they have already started doing. I hope that the DOJ jumps on them for this, so that AMD isn't stiffled due to a giant company wanting all of the pie. Yes, AMD may not have the same market share as intel, but as most people that make their own peecee's will tell you, they offer a better product for less money.

I agree again. But I wasn't talking about unfair business practices. I was just talking about Intel's business model. They can stay clean and continue to grab back AMD's share just by using their tremendous marketing saavy. Whether they do or not, is anyone's guess.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
ftaok, here is the article dated from October 15, 2001 announcing the 1GHz G3 from IBM.

Alpha,

Here's IBM's own press release concerning the Sahara G3. Note the part about "select customers" getting stuff in January 2002. Also, note the line aobut "speeds up to 1ghz later [this] year".

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
B2TM,

I don't think I missed the point at all. If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years? Hell no. They would want users to upgrade every 2-3 years so that they could maintain their market share. There's a finite number of computer users out there and the trick is to keep them coming back for more. You have to keep coming out with faster and better computers to maintain your share.

And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Besides Apple isn't competing against Intel. They have different markets.

Dude, WTF? Who waits 6 years to update their system. As it is now, the average Mac user upgrades every 2 to 3 years, that is actually the average computer user, Macs may stretch to 4. The point is that is the actual problem with the PC industry now is that people are soft to upgrade because they have been flooded with upgrades over the years. Their PIII 500 does everything they need so they don't upgrade. Go with slower processor upgrades like Apple is. My mistake, they are actually presenting a better buisness model to the consumer. Now if they would just present OS X to them as well.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
Alpha,

Here's IBM's own press release concerning the Sahara G3. Note the part about "select customers" getting stuff in January 2002. Also, note the line aobut "speeds up to 1ghz later [this] year".

At least IBM gives real info about what is coming. Unlike what moto is doing. Another reason I would like to see IBM either make the G4/G5 processors, or take it over. IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dude, WTF? Who waits 6 years to update their system. As it is now, the average Mac user upgrades every 2 to 3 years, that is actually the average computer user, Macs may stretch to 4. The point is that is the actual problem with the PC industry now is that people are soft to upgrade because they have been flooded with upgrades over the years. Their PIII 500 does everything they need so they don't upgrade. Go with slower processor upgrades like Apple is. My mistake, they are actually presenting a better buisness model to the consumer. Now if they would just present OS X to them as well.

Dude, lots of Mac users hold onto them for 6 years. Hell, most of them post here. They're holding onto their Wallstreets, Pismos, and 9600s now and even into the future.

But the key to maintaining market share is to keep people upgrading. Sure, it sucks for the comsumer, but we're talking about what Apple can do to increase their market share.

There's 2 distinct camps here. There's the "we need more speed" camp here that's blaming Motorola for not producing faster chips. And there's the "things are fast enough" camp that's blaming Motorola for not producing faster chip. Yes, it's all Motorola's fault that Apple has a low market share.

Anyways, the point is how Apple can gain market share. They can gain market share by getting the word out that Macs are compatible to the average joe. Speed isn't that important.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way.

So? With IBM just supplying the G3 to only 2 model lines and Moto with the rest of them, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got for now. It sucks and I hope change happens soon, but I'm not optimistic here.

'Thankyou sir, may I have another......'

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
At least IBM gives real info about what is coming. Unlike what moto is doing. Another reason I would like to see IBM either make the G4/G5 processors, or take it over. IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way.

If IBM were to take over G5 development for Apple, I would be happy. I see no problems with this. But the bottom line is would IBM be able to provide Apple with speed bumps in a timely manner? Sure, they wouldn't run into manufacturing problems like Motorola has, but the market share isn't there to justify spending a lot of money on R&D. At least not for Apple chips.

The Nintendo chips are an entirely different matter.

One of the biggest problems for Apple is that their two suppliers of CPUs don't consider Apple as their primary customer for PPC chips (i.e. Cisco & Nintendo).

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
If IBM were to take over G5 development for Apple, I would be happy. I see no problems with this. But the bottom line is would IBM be able to provide Apple with speed bumps in a timely manner? Sure, they wouldn't run into manufacturing problems like Motorola has, but the market share isn't there to justify spending a lot of money on R&D. At least not for Apple chips.

The Nintendo chips are an entirely different matter.

One of the biggest problems for Apple is that their two suppliers of CPUs don't consider Apple as their primary customer for PPC chips (i.e. Cisco & Nintendo).

Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be.....

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be.....

Oh no! its not turning into this topic again.....

Almost as bad as saying 'iWalk' in my book!

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be.....

C'mon, you know that won't happen any time soon. Neither IBM nor MOT is ready to give AMD access to the PPC architecture.

And just to be nit-picky, the CEO of AMD wasn't the CEO of MOT. I think he was the head of the Semiconductors Sector. At MOT, it's been Galvin, followed by Galvin, followed by Galvin.

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
C'mon, you know that won't happen any time soon. Neither IBM nor MOT is ready to give AMD access to the PPC architecture.

And just to be nit-picky, the CEO of AMD wasn't the CEO of MOT. I think he was the head of the Semiconductors Sector. At MOT, it's been Galvin, followed by Galvin, followed by Galvin.

Yea, you are right. He was the head of Semiconductors my bad. I know it won't happen, but it would be nice. I just wanted to see how fast Duke could come out of the shadows and get in on this.

 

[wrylachlan]

I'm sorry, but this idea that upgrading more often will piss off customers just doesn't make sense to me. If you are purchasing the computer to do work on, why would you be pissed off about a faster upgrade cycle?

The decision to buy is based on -
"How much will the increased productivity be worth in dollars/day?"
"How many days will it take to pay off the cost of the purchase at that rate?"

If apple upped the speeds more often, then when you did upgrade, you would see a greater productivity increase, so it would take a shorter amount of time to pay off the purchase - which would allow you to make the next upgrade sooner.

I totally fail to see why this would piss people off. Faster processor upgrades from apple would allow you to buy new hardware more often and still justify the expense since your productivity would improve. How is this a bad thing?

My sense is that the people who are advocating a slower upgrade cycle are those who want their bragging rights to last longer when they get a new system. But bragging rights plays little to no role in corporate buying decisions or real professional freelance buying decisions.

As a side note, IMHO the thing that pisses off PC users about upgrading is not the hardware, but the software. Watching a secretary loose productivity trying to figure out even the minor differences between Word 97 and 2000 is immensely frustrating to the corporate IT world. But put a faster system with exactly the same software on the corporate desk, and the productivity goes up.

 

[jamesbhai]

This is quite a circuitous debate. Yes, some people do base their opinion of a system's system on the MHZ. Calling them stupid and deciding they shouldn't own a mac is not what apple is about. If you contend the mac is still faster, show them, don't just tell them. Illustrate benchmarks with a mac user and a 'leading brand' user doing the same tasks. In that, ADVERTISE that the mac has a slower clock cycle. People will get the picture. They don't care about the MHZ, but in absence of another measure of speed, that is all they have to rely on for their decisions. Clarify, don't just dismiss potential customers.

As for upgrade cycles, I am proud that I am using a pism fairly well on OS X with a pismo. I am also proud that my new iBook is very snappy, MHZ be damned. (That 512 L2 cache sure makes a world of difference: see above) Sure, Wintel machines can be cheaper and require quicker upgrades, because they have so many problems. If apple continues to make higher quality products (which they should), owners will upgrade less often. However, those people will still purchase a Mac. The trick is not speeding up the hardware upgrades, but getting PC users to try a mac, buy one mac, just get the foot in the door. This is probably apple's philosophy with the retail stores. 10% market share would be double and I'd be happy with that, as long as they introduce great new software, new hardware such as the iPod and don't degrade the quality to make me have to upgrade quicker. If I truly like the product enough, i'll be trying to purchase a new one even when my old one suffices. That's satisfaction, not desperation.

and that's my 2 cents worth...

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

just wanted to say thanks to all of you b2tm alpha, etc for fighting the good fight. its been interesting reading through the threa and watching as the pc users slowly retreat as you counter everything they say.

i didnt vote in the poll either, because apple has no "problem" at least none in that list.

but i think the problem if there is any one is misinformation. and this threa is a testament to it. its taken numerous posts by alpha and others to slowly set th record straight. and they are explaining these things to proactive intelligient people. imagine how difficult it could be to do the same thing with the average consumer.

apple is completely on the right track. they are attacking the misinformation problem, but its a long uphill battle.

but apple is doing better than any other computer company. the others are going [gone] under or hemoraging money. apple has caught the attention and respect of the media. customers are coming around. osx alone has ton tremendous work, just by bringing the linux and open source crowd over.

as for the speed issue that has consumed the last few posts on the thread. not a 'problem.' sure id like a faster machine. doesnt matter how fast it gets ill always want more. problem with benchmarks is it doesnt measure how long it takes a user to do certain tasks on the machine. the mac is far more efficient than any pc. even my 4 year old mac can out perform any pc simply because its easier to do everything. its all about apple's excellent HIG. its what makes using a mac easy and pleasant to use. pc users waste so much time because of the poor inconsistant gui.

o and everybody go back and read alpha's quote about the two different colored cars (page one i think) its very accurate, even when just comparing the p3 to the p4.

 

[ericb88]

It isn't one problem

It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems. First, apple's are very overpriced. About 20% of PC owners do some gaming and they don't want to spend 1600$, just to get a computer with an upgradeable graphics card. The reason why i didn't buy a mac last computer purchase was price, i'm sure alot of people feel that way.
Speed is also a problem, ever since apple was stuck at 500mhz they've been in a hole there only begining to dig themselves out of. Intel has 2.53ghz with 533mhz bus, we've been at 133mhz bus for how long now? The imac is an amazing machine, but that like most other things apple is making should have been realesed a year ago. IN most applications a 2.53gz computer i can get for 2000 with a monitor can completely destroy the 800mhz mac i can get for 1600 without a monitor.
Software is also an issue, stevey made a huge mistake when he thought gaming wasn't going to be a big deal, it is. And why apple is doing a good job of getting games on apple platforms tehy should work with developers to optomize games for macs and get a mac-exclusive game(waht halo should have been) there is mroe but im sick and tired so...

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Re: It isn't one problem

Originally posted by ericb88
It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems.

these are exactly the misconceptions im referring to. but i think apple is doing a job breaking down these misconceptions.

there are a lot of ericbs out there who just adopt this type of dogma they have been fed for so long. apple's problem is breaking down the barriors of misconceptions built up over the years and finally getting to these people. its a long process. its hard to get people to be good consumers. strange as it sounds even intelligient peope like eric here, are not willing to put forth the effort to check to see if these misconceptions are true. they accept them without thought or research. apple ignored this for a long time and is only now begining to take this issue on. barriors are being broken, but it will be awhile before we get through them all and finally get consumers like ericb. its going to be a long hard job, but i think apple's proven more than once that they are in this for the long haul.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
just wanted to say thanks to all of you b2tm alpha, etc for fighting the good fight. its been interesting reading through the threa and watching as the pc users slowly retreat as you counter everything they say.

I don't know if you're talking about me, but I don't consider myself a PC user (except at work - no choice). And who's retreating? I don't sit in front of a computer all day to read and post to various forums. Besides, some of you "experts" only counter a single point and ignore the ones that you can't counter (i.e. the not-as-of-yet-existing 1Ghz G3).

i didnt vote in the poll either, because apple has no "problem" at least none in that list.

but i think the problem if there is any one is misinformation. and this threa is a testament to it. its taken numerous posts by alpha and others to slowly set th record straight. and they are explaining these things to proactive intelligient people. imagine how difficult it could be to do the same thing with the average consumer.

There's quite a bit of misinformation out there. That's true, but Apple still needs to get the compatibility issue straightened out. With the advent of the Internet, the OS should be virtually invisible. You should be able to view any website regardless of the OS. And don't say that the web designers are lazy.

I'm too lazy to check, but the guy who commented that QT6 will be able to view avi's and such is ready, but it's being held up for blah blah blah... Well, he glossed over the fact that you can't view most of the avi's on the Internet right now.

I think that some of you "anti-zealot" guys have been getting a little over-zealous on your defense of Apple lately.

Flame me if you want, but Apple isn't without problems, and they all don't stem from Motorola.

PS, I'm not a PC user. Just wanted to re-iterate.

 

[gopher]

Pentium III is faster than the Pentium IV

so your speed arguments are moot.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm

Secondly, ease of setup makes Macs that much faster to work with. How many countless days do you spend reinstalling systems, when all you have to do on a Mac is drag and drop a program to the trash if it doesn't work properly?

Thirdly, Macs are much better integrated machines in terms of software and hardware, and you can even get a Flat Panal iMac for $1399 with 32MB of DDR VRAM, 2 Firewire, 3 USB ports, an CD burner and 15" digital LCD, and VGA port, and NIC card, and 56k modem. Perfect gaming machine IMHO.

Fourthly, if you are starving for a higher powered videocard, you can find used a 733 Mhz G4 tower for $1099 now.

Get your facts straight before quoting prices and speeds. You'll be surprised. Macs are faster because of RISC processing, Altivec processing, level 3 cache, and on board better video and audio support.

Originally posted by ericb88
It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems. First, apple's are very overpriced. About 20% of PC owners do some gaming and they don't want to spend 1600$, just to get a computer with an upgradeable graphics card. The reason why i didn't buy a mac last computer purchase was price, i'm sure alot of people feel that way.
Speed is also a problem, ever since apple was stuck at 500mhz they've been in a hole there only begining to dig themselves out of. Intel has 2.53ghz with 533mhz bus, we've been at 133mhz bus for how long now? The imac is an amazing machine, but that like most other things apple is making should have been realesed a year ago. IN most applications a 2.53gz computer i can get for 2000 with a monitor can completely destroy the 800mhz mac i can get for 1600 without a monitor.
Software is also an issue, stevey made a huge mistake when he thought gaming wasn't going to be a big deal, it is. And why apple is doing a good job of getting games on apple platforms tehy should work with developers to optomize games for macs and get a mac-exclusive game(waht halo should have been) there is mroe but im sick and tired so...

 

[gopher]

Compatibility not an issue

Start writing your webmasters to use standards on their webpage that are server side. Server side standards yield nothing but HTML pages that any web browser can render. Unfortunately too many try to add things that are Microsoft Java based, or Microsoft Jscript or ActiveX based. Webmasters who do this should be told that Windows isn't the only world out there, and they are promoting the Microsoft monopoly by using so many client based standards. Meanwhile you can get Connectix VirtualPC for the Mac to support those PC only webpages.

Originally posted by ftaok
I don't know if you're talking about me, but I don't consider myself a PC user (except at work - no choice). And who's retreating? I don't sit in front of a computer all day to read and post to various forums. Besides, some of you "experts" only counter a single point and ignore the ones that you can't counter (i.e. the not-as-of-yet-existing 1Ghz G3).

There's quite a bit of misinformation out there. That's true, but Apple still needs to get the compatibility issue straightened out. With the advent of the Internet, the OS should be virtually invisible. You should be able to view any website regardless of the OS. And don't say that the web designers are lazy.

I'm too lazy to check, but the guy who commented that QT6 will be able to view avi's and such is ready, but it's being held up for blah blah blah... Well, he glossed over the fact that you can't view most of the avi's on the Internet right now.

I think that some of you "anti-zealot" guys have been getting a little over-zealous on your defense of Apple lately.

Flame me if you want, but Apple isn't without problems, and they all don't stem from Motorola.

PS, I'm not a PC user. Just wanted to re-iterate.