eMacs Changing?

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
eMac
17-inch LCD (glass fronted)
1.33ghz/1.42ghz
256/512MB PC2800 RAM
60/80GB UltraATA
**********ATI Radeon 8500*************
Combo/Superdrive
Airport Extreme Ready
2 Firewire, 3 USB
10/100 Ethernet
$799/$1199

Are you mad!!!!
The R8500 stoped production in early 2003 on the PC front. While a great card in it's time it is now very dated.
I would expect at the very worst the bottom of the line mac have at least the current bottom of the line graphices card (R9200,) which by the way is better than the old R8500.

 

[QCassidy352]

I don't think the "$599 headless mac" is coming while SJ is in charge. He wants macs to be a premium product; he does NOT want to compete with low end emachines. Whether or not that's good business strategy is debatable. But Apple has no interest in competing for the low end market, so just forget this "cheap headless mac" stuff.

 

[jade]

I don't thinkanyone really wants and emachine priced emac....how about something like $700-$1200 and upgradeable and headless. Basically a tower for under $1700

 

[K12MacTech]

All-in-one design important to edu

Apple needs to keep the all-in-one design for schools, be it an eMac or not. The day they stop making one is probably the day my district starts to lose it's Macs completely.

I had to install clusters of Compaqs at some of our elementary schools. Two power cords each, 10 ft. video cable, speaker cables, and ended up with quite a bird's nest. Four systems meant 8 power cords. Hmm... wall outlet only provide two, and one is used by the pencil sharpener. Outlet strips in our schools have 7 ports, so string two together or buy longer ones. Space constraints mean a small table, so we jam 4 CPUs, LCD displays and a mess a cables on a surface area that could comfortable handle two. Insufficient room for the keyboard and mouse pad. Can't push them tighter together back to back because of the cables. Can't put the CPUs on the floor since we are talking about little kids that like to swing their legs and kick things. And wow, you can poke a hole in the LCD display with a pencil! (Remember - it's elementary school.)

In contrast, setting up a cluster of eMacs was a breeze. One power cord to plug in, add keyboard and mouse, and plug into network. Small footprint. Plenty of room for keyboard and mouse. No mass of cables to keep straight. And all 4 power cords will easily plug into a single power strip.

Schools can't always easily modify the building infrastructure. Electrical outlets are under chalk/whiteboards - not exactly where you want to put your computers. Buildings are not conducive to running network wire. Everything is subject to retrofitting. One less headache makes a big difference. The simplicity of the all-in-one design - from the early days of 5200s, then iMacs, then eMacs - is attractive to schools, and always will be. There are all-in-one PC's out there, but they are mostly junk. The price is not too high for the eMac. Our district has standards for minimum PC requirements, and we don't buy from el-cheapo brands. We have to meet state bid requirements as well. And the eMacs are cheaper than the PCs we buy - in the initial price as well as maintenance.

I for one hope that Apple does not do away with the eMac or a comparable all-in-one, inexpensive design.

 

[BenRoethig]

Re: i agree on headless imac...

Originally posted by takao

*headless Mac with G5(single 1,6ghz would be enough, won't say no to 2,0 ghz ;-)
*changeable graphicscard in agp slot
*1 x free PCI Slot
*more than 4 USB ports ( printer,scanner,keyboard,webcam,+spare)
*place for an extra hard drive (easy to upgrade)
*easy to upgrade RAM

for max. 1000 EURO ( inkluding taxes, approx. 1200 $ at the moment ) im gonna get one or perhaps even two

the "e" in eMac doesnt really count as education here in europe because for a school it is much more expensive to buy them never heard of a school using them here in austria)

PS: sorry for bad english: native german speaking

They should build a $600 mini-tower for education, business, and anyone who wants a cheap computer purposes. A good portion of the market is in low end no frills, but somewhat upgradable sector.

 

[V.A.Toss]

CPU design

You are all correct when you say that Moto lurch when it comes to R&D and clockspeed. You are also right when you say that when put up against a similarly priced PC the eMac gets utterly crushed (bearing in mind that the equivalent PC would have an AthlonXP 3000+ in it). But you musnt assume that the logical and the best thing to do would be to wack a G5 in an emac and make it headless. A consumer and education machine would have zero use for a cpu of power like the G5s. Do not confuse the fact that the G4 is outdated with it being a bad design, both the G4 and G3 could hold their own against any other CPU of comparable clockspeed and it is only because moto have rubbish R&D that these CPUs are outdated. The design of the G4 and G3s are actually pretty good for a consumer machine, and the only things holding them back from being adequate are its clockspeed, and its FSB. Not having a DDR FSB in 2004 is ludicrous. So if this 750VX goes ahead at a clockspeed of around 1.4Ghz with a DDR fsb, it could be comparable to an Athlon 2400+ system. This 750VX could be a very decent chip, and exactly what a consumer machine would require. A Consumer machine does not need a G5.
As for the iMac, I think dual 750VX would be a good idea, good for a semi pro. And with IBMs reputation for making cost efficient CPUs (unlike moto) the imac price could drop nicely.

 

[Quixcube]

Re: CPU design

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
You are all correct when you say that Moto lurch when it comes to R&D and clockspeed. You are also right when you say that when put up against a similarly priced PC the eMac gets utterly crushed (bearing in mind that the equivalent PC would have an AthlonXP 3000+ in it). But you musnt assume that the logical and the best thing to do would be to wack a G5 in an emac and make it headless. A consumer and education machine would have zero use for a cpu of power like the G5s. Do not confuse the fact that the G4 is outdated with it being a bad design, both the G4 and G3 could hold their own against any other CPU of comparable clockspeed and it is only because moto have rubbish R&D that these CPUs are outdated. The design of the G4 and G3s are actually pretty good for a consumer machine, and the only things holding them back from being adequate are its clockspeed, and its FSB. Not having a DDR FSB in 2004 is ludicrous. So if this 750VX goes ahead at a clockspeed of around 1.4Ghz with a DDR fsb, it could be comparable to an Athlon 2400+ system. This 750VX could be a very decent chip, and exactly what a consumer machine would require. A Consumer machine does not need a G5.
As for the iMac, I think dual 750VX would be a good idea, good for a semi pro. And with IBMs reputation for making cost efficient CPUs (unlike moto) the imac price could drop nicely.

I couldn't agree with you more. Over the past two years I have been replacing PCs in my computer labs with macs. First I used the CRT iMacs, now I use CRT eMacs. I don't need LCDs, I don't need G5s. The machines need a bit more "snap," but that can be done without throwing a G5 into the mix. Remember that the entire architecture of the machine has to change to accomplish that. Which is expensive. Which brings me to my point.

I need a price of $549 per seat instead of $649 per seat. The bean-counters only see price. If it is low enough, they wouldn't care if I installed Amiga Ones into the labs.

I don't think Apple will accomplish a price drop by entirely changing the machine's architecture.

If they continue the small evolutionary steps, lowering the price along the way as they have done for the past year and a half, things will be just fine for the education market--which is the target market of the eMac anyway.

In a lab setup, a CRT is good--it resists ink, jabbing, and Windex. Weight is good--it grants stability. All-in-one is crucial!

I still say that the headless folks are barking up the wrong tree here. You don't want a redesigned eMac. You want a new product.

You want an iTowerMac. Which is fine, but isn't an eMac.

 

[neoelectronaut]

Something else I don't have to worry about while owning an eMac:

"My screen is slightly tilted to the right!"(or left)

 

[V.A.Toss]

headless emac

I agree with you about the headless emac not being a completely brilliant idea, it certainly wont appeal to consumers that already want an emac. However, it definetely would appeal to PC users who already have a monitor (Given it has the correct input connector). So there is a market for both of these theoretical machines.

A PC user will not be prepared to pay over £1000 for a machine, most wont pay over £500.

I have to say from reading these forums, alot of people here dont realise exactly what Moto are good and bad at, they seem to generalise. The fact is, the G4 was and still is a decent chip design-wise, it had a flaw at the 7400 stage, but with IBM i believe moto overcame that. Motos downfall is pushing the clock, and the FSB. With IBM hopefully making a 750VX, this would mean you would have a G3 with altivec, which has a DDR FSB and can scale well. I might also point out to people here that clock for clock a G4 with a DDR fsb could practically match an athlon, and seeing as a consumer level athlon is around about 1.8 Ghz, the 750VX wouldnt be far off. SoPerfect solution which doesnt eat into G5 sales.

Ofcourse this is speaking hypothetically, and apple doesnt always go down the route i like them to.

 

[V.A.Toss]

eliteism

The only thing that i dislike about Apple is theyve always been elite-ist when it comes to pricing and products, a headless mac would break this barrier, and would hopefully get rid of the snobbish attitude alot of mac owners have.

but dont get me wrong here. A headless mac and an emac would be 2 different products, both with different purposes and both for 2 individual markets.

 

[Quixcube]

Re: eliteism

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
The only thing that i dislike about Apple is theyve always been elite-ist when it comes to pricing and products, a headless mac would break this barrier, and would hopefully get rid of the snobbish attitude alot of mac owners have.

but dont get me wrong here. A headless mac and an emac would be 2 different products, both with different purposes and both for 2 individual markets.

Apple is elitist. I don't think they have ever wanted to be anything else.

Case in point. Apple didn't design a small cheaply priced digital music player to accompany the iPod. They had the chance to do so. They designed an equally high-end smaller form factor digital music player instead. They enjoy their spot at the high end of the price scale.

Apple's message to the smallish percentage of their customers who even care enough to wonder wether their Mac is cutting edge or not: Buy a PowerMac and pay the premium for cutting edge hardware.

Their message for the rest of their users (non-professionals, non-gamers, and of course non-technology-hobbyists): Pay less and don't worry. Your Mac is fine.

 

[panphage]

The best new cube...ever

This is a beauty. It's plastic though, so I'm not sure it'll cool very well. Still at least as well as the original cube:

http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_9.html

But it do look real good. Too bad it's not actually a g5, even though the ol' cube can now be made faster than any G4 available from Apple, the 100mhz bus is a serious problem compared to the monster pipes on the G5.

 

[Mord]

what i would like is the current emac form factor with a protected lcd sceen and room in the back for an upgadable agp 4x-8x slot and a few pci-x slots + support for 8gb ram room for another HD and a 1.6 g5

you have enough space for g5 cooling and a popular form factor all for $999

 

[yamabushi]

panphage - that design isn't as heat efficient or as elegant as the original cube in my opinion. I think a better idea is to vent the heat out the top to provide some passive cooling and then add a variable speed fan to help out when the need arises. The slot loading drive and ports for peripherals should also be on top in order to expand options for placement of your Cube. I will gladly cut a hole in the top of my desk and add a bracket underneath in order to flush mount my G5 Cube.

Hector - I think you are asking too much from an eMac. I agree that the eMac could use an updated internal layout but I think this should be done to reduce the price.

The current eMac is very complicated internally and has fairly high manufacturing costs from what I have heard. I think a redesign with the goal of minimizing manufacturing costs might be in order. Keep the eMac an entry level computer with entry level components at an entry level price. A superdrive isn't really needed but is nice as a BTO option. The graphics chipset could stand to be upgraded. It can keep the updated G4 for now but let it run at 1.33GHz. Keep the CRT unless for some crazy reason a design with a different display could be made at less expense.

How about starting at $599? Low enough to fill up numerous computer labs with new eMacs. Low enough to be a low risk initial investment for potential switchers. Make a little money for Apple now and a lot more later as the expanded user base buys new software and more powerful Macs in the future.

 

[V.A.Toss]

Originally posted by Quixcube
Apple is elitist. I don't think they have ever wanted to be anything else.

Case in point. Apple didn't design a small cheaply priced digital music player to accompany the iPod. They had the chance to do so. They designed an equally high-end smaller form factor digital music player instead. They enjoy their spot at the high end of the price scale.

Apple's message to the smallish percentage of their customers who even care enough to wonder wether their Mac is cutting edge or not: Buy a PowerMac and pay the premium for cutting edge hardware.

Their message for the rest of their users (non-professionals, non-gamers, and of course non-technology-hobbyists): Pay less and don't worry. Your Mac is fine.

I agree completely, thats exactly what i was saying. But being elitist isnt good for business, and is just plain wrong in principle. Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

And the plain and simple fact for "the rest of their users" is that actually their mac is not fine, its pretty damn far from fine, seeing as alot of these macs are using technology that is the PC equivalent of being 3 years old. These machines get slaughtered by any PC that costs around £300 to build.

Having control over the high end of computing is a good thing, there are people who need that, and people who are willing to pay money for that. Infact if you are as good at it as apple it means that you will be guaranteed to have a market that wont jump ship to another company. But things have changed in the last 15 years in industrial design, a product can be made at a sufficiently high quality so as not to tarnish the reputation of a brand, and yet be a budget model. If anything, the reason why people choose PC over mac is just because they find PCs are more accessible. It annoys me the way mac users look down on people who use PCs when there is nothing from apple that PC users could consider as an alternative. Its not their fault they pick PC, i would too given their position.
So give them an alternative, make a 750VX product of high quality and price it reasonably competitively. Then if they still pick a PC, i too will be pissing in their face.

If you think im gonna spend £600 on an emac, when i could get the latest Athlon 3200, 400Mhz DDR fsb, radeon 9800 and 512Mb DDR RAM in a box for the same money, your sadly mistaken.

Anyway, this has gone slightly off topic. So i will leave it at that.

 

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
I agree completely, thats exactly what i was saying. But being elitist isnt good for business, and is just plain wrong in principle. Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

...

Anyway, this has gone slightly off topic. So i will leave it at that.

I agree with you here too, although I don't think it is really wandering off topic to discuss the ability of Apple's entry level machine to compete in terms of responsiveness with an entry level PC. I think we are still good here.

I agree that "a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different." I agree whole-heartedly.

Take Honda for example. Something I love about that company is that their entry level cars are of the same very high quality as their premium level cars. A Civic is cheap in cost, but uses as much high-end engineering as possible. Until recently, Honda built them with fully independent suspensions all the way around and other touches that you don't find on most econo-boxes. Just because Civics are at the low end of the product line doesn't mean that they are of low quality in any way. You get less overall, but what you get is of substance. Every part of the machine is trying harder than the average to impress--as much as its cost to manufacture will allow. And I think this is the right way to run a company.

Does Apple follow this philosophy? I don't think so. They have historically castrated machines to develop a product line that has tiers. They have historically stripped cache away from one model of Mac to ensure the next higher on the line performs better. They have kept slower hard drives in models to protect the performance advantage of the next higher model. Think iBook G4 vs. PowerBook G4. Hell, think way back to the 68k Macs. Remember how Apple introduced models with a 32 bit 68k processor on a 16 bit bus to protect the performance of the higher models, while still having the audacity to claim a 32 bit processor as a key feature? This is a *long* standing practice at Apple.

the plain and simple fact for "the rest of their users" is that actually their mac is not fine, its pretty damn far from fine, seeing as alot of these macs are using technology that is the PC equivalent of being 3 years old. These machines get slaughtered by any PC that costs around £300 to build.

I think you are right, but that must not be how Apple sees it. I guess Apple feels that the overall hardware/software package is enough to justify the cost. At least the eMac has gotten cheaper than it was at introduction.

Apple has word processing and internet browsing in mind for the eMac. They will not let it get to close in performance too the premium models.

If they want to keep the cost down, they need to keep it slower by using older hardware. If they redesign it and give it a faster architecture, they will still hobble it somehow.They always have. The difference is that they might raise the price to cover the R&D on the new architecture which screws everyone. I still want the price to hit $549 (a $100 drop.) If they keep the machine identical and drop the price, I would buy another 45 of them today.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

quixcube uses a very nice analogy about Honda. I have allways wished apple would simple make the best computers in its different segments and then let the market decide in terms of volume what they build, but instead as we all know they cripple hold back one line so it doesnt take away from another. I mean just listen to all the talk that they cant make Imac faster then a powerbook? these are two total different uses and markets yet Apple plays this idiotic game and in the end lowers the amount of sales they could make. they couldnt give Imac the 1.33 or 1.4? they just did the same thing with Emac keeping it a 1 gig and giving Imac a 1.25. they could have given Emac a little more and would have sold a ton more but we cant do that cause of Imac. Apple has to stop this anti business practice and start letting the market decide on what to build. instead they do this over and over and just cant seem to grow their computer business.

 

[thatwendigo]

Hector's even worse than DHM, so I'm not touching that one.

Instead, let's hit the fun part, and play with the money trail!

Originally posted by V.A. Toss
Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

Quality - n, pl. - Superiority of kind; Degree or grade of excellence

No, actually, it looks like the cheap player is really unlikely to be the one that is as quality a product as the superior one. True, different price points can serve different needs, but the most excellent of your products will be the one that is truly a "quality" purchase.

If you think im gonna spend £600 on an emac, when i could get the latest Athlon 3200, 400Mhz DDR fsb, radeon 9800 and 512Mb DDR RAM in a box for the same money, your sadly mistaken.

Really?

AMD Athlon "Barton" 3200+ XP, 400Mhz FSB, 512k L2 - $220
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 8x AGP, 128MB DDR (no secondary manufacturer, since Apple uses ATI cards!) - $298
2x 256MB OCZ PC3200 Dual-Channel DDR - $125
Seagate Barracuda 120GB 7200RPM SATA - $105
Asus K8V Deluxe Motherboard - $137
17-inch Flat CRT (take your pick) - $120
Pioneer DVD-RW/+RW DVR-A06 - $144

Those are all taken from newegg. Without the chassis and power supply, that's $1149 US, or £621, if you build the machine yourself.

If anything, the reason why people choose PC over mac is just because they find PCs are more accessible. It annoys me the way mac users look down on people who use PCs when there is nothing from apple that PC users could consider as an alternative. Its not their fault they pick PC, i would too given their position.

What position would that be? Not knowing the difference in hardware integration and ease of use in the mac? Perhaps you meant to say that they've only used Windows, and they haven't had enough exposure to the mac world to know how much easier the average consumer has it with Apple than with an unstable Windows box?

I'd love to hear how there's 'no alternative,' since Apple has a whole product line full of them.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I mean just listen to all the talk that they cant make Imac faster then a powerbook? these are two total different uses and markets yet Apple plays this idiotic game and in the end lowers the amount of sales they could make. they couldnt give Imac the 1.33 or 1.4? they just did the same thing with Emac keeping it a 1 gig and giving Imac a 1.25. they could have given Emac a little more and would have sold a ton more but we cant do that cause of Imac.Apple has to stop this anti business practice and start letting the market decide on what to build. instead they do this over and over and just cant seem to grow their computer business.

Anti-business?

We're talking about a company that offers more than one product, doesn't have a lock on the market, and doesn't make the legislative decisions regarding the market, right? If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple is so near sighted on product placement they make poor marketing and business decisions more worried about a product stepping on another toes then making the best machine in a segment and letting sales determine the success of a product. the examples i have given above are perfect. a 1.33 could have just as easily fit into the imac as a 1.25, why didnt they ? oh yeah we cant have a consumer machine at a higher speed then a pro laptop? same goes for emac why not the 1.25? there isnt much difference in heat or cost but why? same thing cant step on Imac toes. so what we have is Apple competing with Apple instead of Apple building the best product in a price range and letting the consumer decide which is the hit and which is the miss. Apple has 3-5% market share why? they got the best software in the world. so its not the software. Lets look at the hardware. G4 games, products competing with each other, and a consumer line that locks out any Pc user with a monitor that wants to spend less then $1700. so who is Apple competing with? they compete with themself and in the end all those switchers keep using Pcs. why else such a poor marketshare. no wonder they are chasing the walkman market. they have locked themself into motorola's G4 game. If any Pc maker was using G4 they would have gone belly up. the reason apple hasnt is because of the software division(#1) and some very fancy styling. yes i know G5 is here but its a year or more late.

 

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Apple is so near sighted on product placement they make poor marketing and business decisions more worried about a product stepping on another toes then making the best machine in a segment and letting sales determine the success of a product. the examples i have given above are perfect. a 1.33 could have just as easily fit into the imac as a 1.25, why didnt they ? oh yeah we cant have a consumer machine at a higher speed then a pro laptop? same goes for emac why not the 1.25? there isnt much difference in heat or cost but why? same thing cant step on Imac toes. so what we have is Apple competing with Apple instead of Apple building the best product in a price range and letting the consumer decide which is the hit and which is the miss. Apple has 3-5% market share why? they got the best software in the world. so its not the software. Lets look at the hardware. G4 games, products competing with each other, and a consumer line that locks out any Pc user with a monitor that wants to spend less then $1700. so who is Apple competing with? they compete with themself and in the end all those switchers keep using Pcs. why else such a poor marketshare. no wonder they are chasing the walkman market. they have locked themself into motorola's G4 game. If any Pc maker was using G4 they would have gone belly up. the reason apple hasnt is because of the software division(#1) and some very fancy styling. yes i know G5 is here but its a year or more late.

Sorry, DHM, but I'm not biting this time. You're making the same rant, over and over again, and I've already defeated every single one of those arguments on other threads.

Time for some new material, my friend, because yours is about as old and slow as the G4 you keep ranting against.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

to keep holding back Emac is a sin, look at what ibodnar did to his 800 emac on another thread. if he could do that Apple could have a 1.25 Emac a long time ago and more point has been made.

 

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
Instead, let's hit the fun part, and play with the money trail!

Don't try to argue that an entry level Mac will give you the same hardware performance as an entry level PC. The Mac has to make up for its performance shortcomings through software superiority right now because the hardware is still in a mess on the low end. The high-end Athlon example given above isn't really on the money, but the argument being made is sound. The Mac has a big hurdle to overcome at the entry level right now. Shoppers who care about benchmarks (not Apple's biggest buyers, but they do look at Macs sometimes) are turned off by the hardware in the low end machines. Your rebuttal here isn't particularly strong. It is based on refuting an example, but not the logic behind it.

Quality - n, pl. - Superiority of kind; Degree or grade of excellence

No, actually, it looks like the cheap player is really unlikely to be the one that is as quality a product as the superior one. True, different price points can serve different needs, but the most excellent of your products will be the one that is truly a "quality" purchase.

Hmm.. I don't get it. Why should two products that serve their own unique purposes equally well be of a different quality? I think they can both be of the same quality. I think this is true even if one costs less. After all, someone who doesn't want all of their music with them for some reason would define the specific player that meets *their* needs as "more excellent" than another player. I don't think any product has to be totally analogous to another product on some independent achievement scale (in this example GB of storage) to be of equal quality. I think you are talking about bang for the buck, which has only a passing association with the quality of a product. If you have two products, both of which perform their intended functions flawlessly, you have two high-quality products. It doesn't effect the quality of one in a detrimental way if the other has the potential to out do the other unless they were both intended to have an identical function (to store x number of songs, to run at x rate of speed.)

Anti-business?

We're talking about a company that offers more than one product, doesn't have a lock on the market, and doesn't make the legislative decisions regarding the market, right? If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

I also think that Apple is shooting itself in the foot over and over again. I read anti-business to mean "anti-consumer driven" and therefore bad for business. Apple isn't looking out for its customers when it castrates a line of computers for the sake of another of its lines.

I am still not sure if Apple is doing this with the eMac or not. I like to think they are just using old hardware designs because they can't manufacture a new one yet at the current price point. Still, they have castrated product lines in the past and it has hurt them. Apple doesn't have a reputation in the industry for engineering-heavy hardware.

If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

I am sure they do have plan, and it is working if the market share goes up and Apple makes money. Don't attack someone for implying that Apple isn't a customer friendly company though. Quite a few Apple fans--myself included--like Apple despite their marketing crap.

 

[Spock]

Wow, You people are putting alot of thought into Your Post's.

 

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by Spock
Wow, You people are putting alot of thought into Your Post's.

Applz rock PeeCees sux!

 

[Spock]

Originally posted by Quixcube
Applz rock PeeCees sux!

O.k, that was irelivant.


But kinda Funny