Jon'sLightBulbs said:
Ummm...NO. As far as I knew any developer could have had an Intel based Mac 8 - 10 months ago for $999 . If they were really a Mac developer they would have known this. There was no secret. Get a clue...
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.
Intel iMac Sales Sluggish?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ummm...NO. As far as I knew any developer could have had an Intel based Mac 8 - 10 months ago for $999 . If they were really a Mac developer they would have known this. There was no secret. Get a clue...
I'd also throw out there that a lot of this is due to the fact that prices for these things hasn't dropped a penny.
The promise of Intel led many to believe (myself included) that hardware costs would go down and Apple could compensate to be more competitive with beige-box powerhouses like Dell.
I'm still hoping for the $799 Macbook, Intel iBook replacements come Spring.
The promise of Intel led many to believe (myself included) that hardware costs would go down and Apple could compensate to be more competitive with beige-box powerhouses like Dell.
I'm still hoping for the $799 Macbook, Intel iBook replacements come Spring.
Yvan256 said:
I'm on that list, too. I used a mac mini in my entertainment center. It was great, but I sold it b/c I believed rumors
that a better version might be announced at MWSF. Still have hope for something with Front Row and DVR built into it by summer.Re slow mac sales, post holiday timing might be part of it, but my new iMac and new MB Pro have tentative ship dates of mid-February, which seems like a few others are in line before me.
wpwj40e said:Interestingly enough - most of the poeple I know buying one or seriously contemplating are PC WIN owners right now. The MAC fans seem to be the ones holding off.....That alone kinda scares me - what do you guys know that we newbies don't????
they are scared of Apple Rev. A hardware. *******!!
J/King JDOG_ said:
Umm consider the R&D involved in the transition. Moving the software over to x86 wasn't a free ride. Yes Intel provided the chipset but as an integrator Apple had it work cut our for them. I think it was somewhat foolish to think that Apple was going to drop their prices. And I would start lowering your expectations on ANY iBook below $999. It ain't going to happen.
It doesn't really seem like Adobe is giving much thought to the Intel transition at all. I mean they are developing LightRoom, the first beta is Mac only, but not Universal.
Seriously, WTF? They are developing a completely new app and are still shifty about Intel Mac compatibility with it.
Seriously, WTF? They are developing a completely new app and are still shifty about Intel Mac compatibility with it.
That doesn't make any sense. Apple pro apps are late because only Apple had advance warning about the transition? Apple pro apps are coming in March. And Universal Binaries ARE available, in fact they were from some companies even BEFORE the Intel Mac launch. Obviously there's a ramp-up happening rather than instant availability of all-native apps. There's no avoiding that. And Rosetta is a great transitional technology that is doing its job well--to the point where a great many users for a great many tasks will never even notice the difference. For other tasks, they will. It's a big transition and that's life. It's temporary.Jon'sLightBulbs said:
Regarding Apple's secrecy being the problem here:
* Apple DID give developers a LOT of warning--LONG before last year: they told developers to get their apps onto Xcode. They made clear that Xcode--and preferably Cocoa--was the future. Apple wasn't kidding. Xcode is the key to Universal Binaries, and developers that listened to Apple's early warnings were in far better shape to get their apps Intel-native.
* If Apple had told developers about Intel even earlier--before the details and the tools were finalized--it wouldn't have necessarily helped them. Developers wouldn't have had enough to work with. They would have been given a moving target, which mean wasted money and wasted time. That's doing nobody any favors. Waiting until you have the tools ready to hand over is exactly what Apple should have done--and they did.
* The time-frame for Universal Binaries, for many apps, is nothing to do with Apple: the porting will await the next major version of the software. Why would Adobe do massive work porting CS2, even while another team works on CS3? It would be a huge waste for them. Instead, it will be CS3 that's Intel-native. And Apple giving Adobe extra notice of the Intel change wasn't going to make them finish CS3 faster. CS3 (or any other big new version of a major app) is its own project with its own schedule, and Apple can't dictate the timing.
* "Just check the little box" is absolutely true for some apps--especially ones made by developers who followed Apple guidelines (aka advance warning) in recent years. For other apps it's much harder, and for most it's in the middle. Apple never suggested otherwise.
It sounds like you may be an iMac G5 owner who is upset about things advancing so quickly--and we've all felt that frustration at some point. But that always happens with computers--there is ALWAYS something better on the way and Apple "secrecy" should never make anyone doubt that.
And Apple's secrecy about upcoming products IS very important--just like for any company, but more so when you're competing against Microsoft. You may think Apple should have stopped selling Macs during the holiday shopping season, and told everyone early about Intel's Core Duo release. I can understand why you'd want that, but it doesn't make business sense.
(PS, is this like the "iWork sales sluggish" rumor?
)
It could also be down to the supply of Dual Cores from Intel.
I too find it extremely strange that Apple hasn't reduced the prices of the PPC models.
15" PB PPC price against the 15" PB Intel looks absolutely pathetic.
Reminds me of when Compusmart had an old 17" iMac ( Lamp) right next to a 17" G5 iMac almost at the same price.
I do agree that Apple should have coordinated with ( more larger ) developers the release dates of Intel machines so all sides can be ready.
Apple do not need to be lose cannons.
Marvy said:I find this a bit hard to believe. Check out the official iMac Buyer's Forum here on MR: Alot of people (like me) are having delays in their orders of the new inteliMac. Some of them have had their orders delayed until March. Doesn't this suggest that there are more buyers than Apple had expected. Or does Apple's logistics department just suck?
Another thing I don't quite understand: Why is Carbon so much harder to translate than Cocoa? I though the Carbon APIs were available for Intel just like they are on the PPC. Isn't the real problem the endianess, which applies to both Carbon and Cocoa?
I too find it extremely strange that Apple hasn't reduced the prices of the PPC models.
15" PB PPC price against the 15" PB Intel looks absolutely pathetic.
Reminds me of when Compusmart had an old 17" iMac ( Lamp) right next to a 17" G5 iMac almost at the same price.
I do agree that Apple should have coordinated with ( more larger ) developers the release dates of Intel machines so all sides can be ready.
Apple do not need to be lose cannons.
Sources say, eh? I wonder if these are the same sources that claimed Nano sales were disappointing @ launch. Could ThinkSecret be bitter with all the legal attention Apple is giving them?
Meanwhile, Apple stated at a financial results webcast (this is mainly for stock analysts, even if Joe Blow can listen in) that the response was "extrodinary." Now it's one thing to puff smoke to Style Section editors of local newspapers, but once you start playing word games with stock analysts and then later have to retract, or announce disappointing sales, your cred is done. Apple isn't in the position to lose the goodwill they've gained these past couple of years, and I'm pretty sure they are aware of that.
So, right now I'm going to call "BS," and believe Apple over Think Secret.
As for software transition, when have any software vendors been ahead of the game on any new OS? Not anytime I can remember. Even Win XP had it's problems @ launch working with Win 98 drivers. It's expected.
Meanwhile, Apple stated at a financial results webcast (this is mainly for stock analysts, even if Joe Blow can listen in) that the response was "extrodinary." Now it's one thing to puff smoke to Style Section editors of local newspapers, but once you start playing word games with stock analysts and then later have to retract, or announce disappointing sales, your cred is done. Apple isn't in the position to lose the goodwill they've gained these past couple of years, and I'm pretty sure they are aware of that.
So, right now I'm going to call "BS," and believe Apple over Think Secret.
As for software transition, when have any software vendors been ahead of the game on any new OS? Not anytime I can remember. Even Win XP had it's problems @ launch working with Win 98 drivers. It's expected.
Yvan256 said:
I know it has been quoted several other times- but me too.
I have more stuff than I need right now - but I would consider a mac mini to play with and compare to my G5. I certainly won't be spending 2 grand on an intel imac or macbook - too much $$ for something I am unsure of. (unsure of the reliablility of first rev )
Ditto for meYvan256 said:
Replacing my wife's Athlon 2200+/Win 2K box with an Intel Mini ASAP
Later, will replace my old G4 500 DP with an Intel PowerMac (or whatever they call it) or maybe a MacBook Pro rev B
DeepDish said:
I think Apple either:
1. Found their leak and is exploiting it.
2. Is implementing a false information campaign to certain segments of their company to try and get a handle on where the leak is/was. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple hired former CIA operatives to manage their internal security at this point.
I mean really what you are trying to do is find a mole in your company. Who better to get to deal with such problems then people who use to do this kinda stuff for a living.Chupa Chupa said:
Ummm XP never supported any 98 drivers. Different architecture. 2000 drivers are another matter. I found that the vast majority of 2K drivers and some NT drivers work perfectly fine in XP.
Uh-Oh spaghetti-Ohs!
Bound to happen by leaving consumers making short sighted or impulse purchases by not giving a roadmap or release date on upcoming products.
Also, a first gen product, people have gotten accustomed to stay away from apple first gen products since they always want to rush to the market with something new.
Bound to happen by leaving consumers making short sighted or impulse purchases by not giving a roadmap or release date on upcoming products.
Also, a first gen product, people have gotten accustomed to stay away from apple first gen products since they always want to rush to the market with something new.
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
And how is this any different from previous Apple product launches. There is always a product on the verge of a speed bump or revision. Moreover, if you bough the machine for Xmas almost every store had extended return periods. Most buyers were eligible to return when Jobs made the announcement if they really wanted an Intel machine.
I bet you'd be whining "why didn't Apple come out with an Intel Mac at MW if they hadn't come out with one. You can't have it both ways. Plus, anytime you intro an all new machine there is going to be a gap when a lot of software won't be available. This was true of the PPC machines, of the OS X machines, of all of Windows OSes, and now of the Intel Macs.
I don't understand people who moan and complain about the performance of the Mac mini.
Do you not understand that the mini is not supposed to be a powerhouse! If they put the same hardware in it as they do with the pro laptop series the price is going to go up, a lot.
The Mac mini will never be able to be fast and cheap as long as they keep using laptop spec'd parts, and still it isn't upgradable.
If you want a powerhouse get a PM.
Do you not understand that the mini is not supposed to be a powerhouse! If they put the same hardware in it as they do with the pro laptop series the price is going to go up, a lot.
The Mac mini will never be able to be fast and cheap as long as they keep using laptop spec'd parts, and still it isn't upgradable.
If you want a powerhouse get a PM.
Too much ambiguity on the iMac I think. The Intel and G5 iMacs are both available for roughly same price. The Intel machine is touted as a faster machine while the G5 runs all the apps. That creates confusion for the consumer.
It did for me.. I have a wad of cash and was wanting to purchase the new Macbook and Intel iMac. However I'm not feeling warm & fuzzy about dropping that kind of cash for technology that won't run my pro apps. And I don't feel warm & fuzzy about dropping cash on technology Apple claims is 2-4X slower. Makes it easy for me and other consumers to take a wait & see approach.
It did for me.. I have a wad of cash and was wanting to purchase the new Macbook and Intel iMac. However I'm not feeling warm & fuzzy about dropping that kind of cash for technology that won't run my pro apps. And I don't feel warm & fuzzy about dropping cash on technology Apple claims is 2-4X slower. Makes it easy for me and other consumers to take a wait & see approach.
Agent Smith said:
very true. Another point, IMO, is that people want to know that they have the new machine. If ppl see ur intel iMac, they wont be able to tell until they're using it. Also, when you are typing (as i am now), you won't notice a difference. Right now, the differences between the current intel imac, and the last rev iMac G5, is the chip. And if your not using an app that needs alot of speed, you wont notice any differences. If you are using an application that requires alot of power, you aren't going to get it until the universal versions come out. Also, if virtual pc does work, it would be using rosetta to emulate a ppc chip to get a program that emulates an x86 chip. It shouldn't be that hard for MS to make Virutal PC: Intel Mac, and when they do, they could get more of those purchased, and more macs purchased because they can run windows apps and mac apps. Either developers need to get their universal apps out, or apple needs to introduce a brand new revolutionary design, before these new Intel Macs sell well.
Jon'sLightBulbs said:
as of june last year secrecy at apple, at least in terms of things affecting developers is effectively gone. intel's processor road map basically tells you everything you're going to get in a mac for the next 3-5 years.
by november anyone with half a brain knew that intel macs were going to come out in january. performance per watt arguments and the yonah hype was clearly pointing to a new laptop (i was surprised by the imac).
Chupa Chupa said:
That depends on where you live, certain places like the UK and certain locations in the States and canada will allow you to return the item or exchange it, with certain conditions because the local consumer protection laws dictates them so. Meanwhile, other places are not obliged to obey those laws, and if you happen to have purchased an item, Mac or not, you may not return it or exchange it. Per apple.ca's return policies, they will not return or exchange an item unless it is defective or unopened. Most people also don't buy an item with the intention to return it either.
Yvan256 said:
HandBrake is available as a Universal Binary allready. It is still beta but works great.
Macrumors said:
I'd guess there are about a zillion people thinking just like me. I'd like to buy a new Macintosh but...
(1) I will NOT buy one that can't run Apple's and other's high end applications in native mode. I'd be nuts to spend a couple grand on a machine that runs Photoshop at 1/2 speed and can't run Final Cut at all
(2) I'd be nuts to buy a discontinued G5 powered machine when Steve himself said it will be replaced by the end of 2006.
So what do I do? Nothing now. I wait and buy an Intel Mac AFTER the universal binaries are shipping
I'd guess that 90% of Apple's customersare thinking like me. If Apple were smart they have some SERIOUS disconts durring this transitin period. I'd expect the G4 based products to be like 30% off now and 50% off by year end Who would buy a G4 knowing that in a few months they can get the Intel version at the same price?
Macrumors said:
And why is it substantial? Because they're using Carbon. Why are they using carbon? Because they did not want to make a complete transition to OSX. Hell, the G5 has been out since 2003 and all Adobe has done towards addressing the G5 is release a patch...that patch was just rolled into CS and CS2. I know it must be a god awful thing to do, but maybe Adobe and MS should rewrite their friggin apps, instead of shoehorning them into the next technology.
The hardware is no longer holding computers back, the software is.
With the absurd claims made at launch, can you blame savvy consumers for being cautious?
"Performance per what" indeed.
"Performance per what" indeed.
Play Ultimate said:
Bingo. Personally, I see both crrent intel machines as more public prototypes. That's why they still sell the PowerPC machines.
Not a bad phobia to have. I'm not ready for my next Mac yet, but I wouldn't jump for an Intel iMac with a one-digit serial number anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the pressures of meeting their deadline led to some shortcuts that later models will remove. And start-up jitters on the assembly line could very well have produced glitches yet to be dealt with. I'm not saying there are problems, just that the probability is higher. I'll have more confidence in the next round of Intel Macs.SiliconAddict said: