have a look around the forums, you'd think that the new Intel iMacs are the only way to go and that any G4 and G5 chips are now obsolete.
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
Oh yes he did. Check post #153. Note the word "pirating".danielwsmithee said:
No, I don't think buying on eBay is piracy. (Unless you purchase something knowing that its not legit).
Now back on topic... To predict Intel iMac sales, Apple could look at their PowerMac 6100 sales volume in the months following the switch from 68K to PPC. History tends to repeat itself. Back then the PowerPC had far better floating point processing power than the 68K CPU. However, this time around I don't think the PPC to Intel switch offers the same massive performance increase.
SiliconAddict said:
You are missing the point. Any sufficiently large corporation can port an application in seven months provided it has unlimited resources, example, hire all the developers in the U.S and have them porting application (an extreme example, i know).. my point is, why would adobe and microsoft, after being told about a june release date, set a deadline of january for their application porting?. Developers cost money. There is a reason that there was a deadline. So companies could plan their resources accordingly. Lets do a thought exercise. Before apple announced their intel switch, adobe developers were not just sitting around doing nothing. Apple announces their switch. Adobe has to move developers from whatever they were doing to port. They have to calculate how many developers to move to porting. Other projects may now have to work with less developers.. adobe then may have to hire additional developers. They have a deadline, they compute how many developers it would take to reach this deadline, they have to hire these developers (developers are not falling off a tree). Now, imagine you are managing your resources.. why would you go the the vp of the company and say, "hey, lets spend millions more money hiring more developers, moving even more developers from whatever project they were doing to porting so we can get this done earlier than apple is gonna release new software so it can just sit there on the shelf".. How do you think VP of finance is gonna look at that proposal?. I happen to be familiar with some financial decisions a company makes because my aunt owned her own company and i worked for her for a while.. now, maybe you are familiar too but you seem to think money grow on trees and a company would just for no reason at all, spend more money than is necessary. Now, would adobe have finished porting by June?.. probably not.. but asking them to port by january when they had no information that they should is kinda silly. Maybe they didn't even plan to complete porting by june anyway. Adobe is big but they do not have unlimited resources.
wnurse said:
I seriously doubt Adobe have not been kept in the loop. MS may be a different proposition. From Adobe's perspective I think the early release of the Intel Macs is almost irrelevant. Their app runs under Rosetta with a "pro-spec" machine (i.e. enough memory) it runs well enough for amateurs and semi-pro.
Adobe as a large company will probably have taken this as an oppertunity to consolidate (shared code/build processes between windows/osx development), and look for additional savings that will deliver over the long term. Backed with if one of their customers really needs to run one of their apps, they can. When's CS3 due out? I would not be stunned if it wasn't UB until then. Why would they?
Companies often spend more money than they "need" to right now, in order to gain benefits in the future (we've just re-architected our 10 year old product from the ground up, it's taken time and a lot of resource, but it is now delivering benefits every single day. We didn't have to do, but the business justification for spending now in order to be more agile and efficient later was strong).
Anyway, I seriously doubt this was presented as a porting project to the CFO, much more likely as an integration and consolidation++ project. The reason we don't have an UB Adobe suite today is that they don't see the need to be native intel today. They could have done it if they had wanted to, and finance was probably not the reason they didnt'.
Neither would a new iMac (although the Mac Book Pro might have been a bit of a surprise)hayesk said:
For the record, I wasn't at all expecting Photoshop or Office to have UB versions out yet - I'm just saying that I don't think either company was taken by surprise too much by the new machines at MWSF.
BTW: I am a fairly seasoned lead software engineer* and work with teams from 5 to 50 developers at a time - I know full well that throwing people at a project doesn't necessarily speed it up. In fact it can often bog things down.
I'd expect that Adobe's team is fully competent and will have at least a beta UB version of Photoshop and the most common filters available about the time the first Intel PowerMac's (or whatever they'll be called) are shipped/announced.
(*C, C++, Java application server stuff - not Mac or GUI although I do tinker in XCode and WebObjects occasionally)
mongoos150 said:
That's my point though. I wasn't trying to compare the MBP to the new iMac...I know that desktop machines almost always will beat a comparable laptop. My point was that we've got people complaining about Pro apps being slower and even not compatible (like FCP) on these brand new iMacs (maybe I wasn't catching the bigger picture of the rest of the thread). None of this Intel stuff was supposed to be out until June anyway, so lets give it some time, wait for Apple to get their "pro" desktops working, let the pro software come along with it, and let those creative pro's go out and do their thing.
I'd consider myself a creative pro, using FCP and Adobe CS (I'm a media arts student), and the new iMac is suiting me far better than my PowerBook. The new iMac is on par - and surpasses most - pro machines. It's absolutely a pro-capable machine.gregarious119 said:
mongoos150 said:
Resting case. See, it's sleeping now.
Reality is for someone upgrading from an iMac G5 to an iMac Core Duo with what, a couple of months between them, just how much of a speed bump were you expecting? At least compare it to a machine from a year ago...
mongoos is, IMHO, far more likely to be representative of the attitude of most users who haven't just upgraded, or are not downgrading from a pro mac.
mongoos150 said:
And this is what I'm wanting to hear from people I believe.
My hopes were to get a latest gen g5 imac for cheap from the refurb store or used.. however, the more I hear from Core Duo users... the more it sounds like a bad idea.
Sales might be sluggish.. but I'm not sure why. Folks around here give this machine raving reviews. I hope to see one tonight at Apple Easton.
The creative pros, myself and others, can do our thing when universal binaries of software is released, not new pro hardware. People are complaining about pro apps not working on the iMac because there are no UBs out for them! Once UBs are released the iMac will fly with pro users such as myself.
wnurse said:
Yes, and any sufficiently large corporation has enough market stability to employ an overwhelmingly large bundle of administratiums and market scientists to generate revenue by patent portfolios or sheer market dominance while producing or not having the economic burden to immediately produce innovation or products.
Norse Son said:
Uh, this isn't true. You can get access to all the functionality in Carbon that you can in Cocoa, you just don't get it 'for free'. That is the difference between a high-level framework and a low-level framework. To put in Windows terms: Cocoa is to .NET as Carbon is to Win32/MFC. You can write in either, and you can get the same tasks done, but you can write your code faster in Cocoa/.NET, at the expense of some performance in certain places.
Carbon was never the issue with moving to Universal binaries... CodeWarrior is. People put a lot of blame on a framework which has nothing to do with this transition.
gregarious119 said:
That is precisely why there is no software, and why Apple didnt release "pro" machines. The pro machines will be here when Logic, FCP, Photoshop, etc are Universal.
But the fact is, there's no software out there right now to justify my Intel iMac purchase. I know that's not Apple's fault entirely, although they've been telling people to use XCode for YEARS! But you'd think that they'd lower the cost of their G5 iMacs and G4 Powerbooks to sell a few of these "older" systems, rather than have sales of BOTH the newer, faster models and the older models dry up completely. I was ready to buy a G5 iMac soon, but I wont spend the same money on a "slower" system knowing something else is 1.5-2x faster for the same money. I'll just wait until Logic, Live, Reason, etc are Intel-ready.
gnasher729 said:
Ooooo, that's right. It would probably be better for Adobe in the long-run to switch to the Apple-provided plugin bundle system. It is COM-inspired, and could allow them to make a similar switch on the Windows side as well (just make sure your DLL/.plugin supports Interface X)... but it will definitely be hell for them the first couple versions.
Edge100 said:
Well, Ableton Live will be ready in Feb.
From Ableton website:
"Live 5.2 will enter beta as soon as the new Intel Core Duo-equipped MacBook Pro is available, and expected to be released in February. Thanks to Live 5.2, early MacBook Pro buyers will be able to run Live immediately and enjoy substantially higher audio performance than on today's fastest Mac notebook."
At the moment, ALL of the top 10 best selling computers at Amazon are Macs:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/all/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/
The top 5 are the Core Duo machines with an iBook thrown in (I get the feeling the Core Solo iBook-replacement may be the best selling Mac ever).
Some like to say Amazon rankings are skewed because Amazon users tend to be Mac users, but that's just not true. Most Amazon users are PC users, just like the rest of the world.
What IS true is that Amazon is not representative of the buying public today. Amazon is used by people comfortable with online shopping, early adopters of new ways of buying. Thus, I'd say that Amazon is more representative of the future of people's buying habits, not so much a glimpse of today's market.
And if I'm right, that bodes well for Mac sales in other venues over time.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/all/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/
The top 5 are the Core Duo machines with an iBook thrown in (I get the feeling the Core Solo iBook-replacement may be the best selling Mac ever).
Some like to say Amazon rankings are skewed because Amazon users tend to be Mac users, but that's just not true. Most Amazon users are PC users, just like the rest of the world.
What IS true is that Amazon is not representative of the buying public today. Amazon is used by people comfortable with online shopping, early adopters of new ways of buying. Thus, I'd say that Amazon is more representative of the future of people's buying habits, not so much a glimpse of today's market.
And if I'm right, that bodes well for Mac sales in other venues over time.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Edge100 said:
...and also when they've got desktop chips from Intel that are quicker than the dual-core G5.
And IME, the iMac is plenty fast enough for some pro use. I use one all the time for web design and development. The iMac Core Duo however is about have the speed of a G5 iMac for Photoshop.
daveslc said:
Emulation running a virtualization environment running apps that were designed for an OS revision that is 6 years old. I can say this... Apple will not get Rosetta running Classic. Classic, with the transistion, is dead to Apple.
Just out of curiosity, which apps are pros using in Classic still?
Just use http://www.gibix.net/projects/sheepshaver/ (no idea how well it works, but apparently it works on Intels)daveslc said:
bugfaceuk said:
I disagree with you but at least your post makes a lot of sense and is quite logically a possible explanation. That SilliconAddict guy didn't know what he was talking about.
The only reason i disagree with you is becuase apparently adobe was upset at the early release of the hardware so i deduced they wanted to time their port with hardware release.. but hey, your explanation makes sense too so i am not going to knock it.
I've read that several times from several different people, and it still sounds like a load of crap to me.
What, exactly, is the difference in "amateurs and semi-pro" users and "pros"? I'm not a professional, but I daresay my scanned 4x5 negatives are as large as what most 'pro' users work with under most circumstances. Likewise, consumer digital SLRs produce files roughly the same size as pro dSLRs in RAW form.
Slow is slow, whether you're a pro or not.