I understand this sentiment but I'd rather have an announcement about a product for which I have to wait. At least I'd have some control in purchasing decisions. It's the unknown possible wait of 2 weeks, 2 months, or longer that is the killer.
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.
Introducing the new Mac Pro
- Thread starter Just Switched
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand this sentiment but I'd rather have an announcement about a product for which I have to wait. At least I'd have some control in purchasing decisions. It's the unknown possible wait of 2 weeks, 2 months, or longer that is the killer.
Everybody would rather know when a new product is coming out, no matter what the product is. The problem is that Apple just likes to keep it a secret. And even though we all want to have an approximate date on the new Mac Pro release, chances are they won't give us one. It's been awhile since their last keynote for a computer. They will probably just do a silent update when it comes out.
Agreed. If the Mac Mini had a silent update for such a big change it is likely that the Mac Pro will be updated silently too. As far as Apple letting us know ahead of time: It's not in their DNA. One can hope though
No... they would probably keep selling the old model for a very long time, until most of the industry just looses interest (except for a few fans on here). They will do this so Steve doesn't have to go up and make an announcement that he personally knows people don't need real computers for productive tasks anymore. Meanwhile, they will release a bunch of itoys.
Oh wait...this is already happening
No they wouldn't. Historically have not done that under the second reign of Jobs. When the Newtons got Steve'd , they were gone. Cube shot dead, gone. More recently XRaid. Disappeared with a web page saying go buy 3rd party. If the central politboro decides the product is not an Apple focus and hasn't been classified an "up and coming hobby" it gets terminated.
You are confusing the 30" Cinema display with that Jobs has historically done in most cases. The 30" display is either locked up in some contract where they have to keep selling it. Or is waiting on some technology that hasn't hit the right introduction factors yet ( not sure what waiting on 10-bit color , LEDs , better IPS ... all pretty much in place at this point). Perhaps it is the return of Apple Display Connector (ADC) reincarnated as light peak.
Also may be confusing classifying the situation as milking Macs as a cash cow. Still have to feed the cow to get milk.
Which get released on 12 month cycles.
It isn't the length of cycles, it the regularity of them. 2x or 1x a year neither is particularly indicative of focus (or lack there of) in and of itself.
Perhaps not so simple.
If Intel tells Apple in December-Junuarary under NDA that the 3620 and 3640 will ship in July why would Apple buy a contract to buy a years worth of 3530 and 3550 from March '10 to March '11 ? Especially, If told better tech at effectively same price is coming if just sit for 4 months? Isn't that the same thing that many are moaning about here ("don't want to buy old decrepit tech if replaced in a matter of weeks." )
Even with those contracts none of the large vendors completely dumped their 5500/3500 line ups. Most just increased from 6-10 models to 10-14.
Likewise if Intel finds out in November-December can't release all of the 32nm products under contract at the same time .... why wouldn't they hold some of them back until have more fabs running closer to 100% ? For example the core i3-550 didn't ship for 4 months after the others in Janurary.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_...6003174AJ (BX80616I3550 - BXC80616I3550).html
[ or don't ship white iPhone4 until get basic iPhone4 production running close to meeting to demand. ]
Apple has $40B in the bank. If decide want to wait a bit to get a better contract, they can. Apple getting a better contract doesn't mean their customers in general get a worse deal. On the contrary over the course of the year most of the customers will get a better deal if they wait.
Much more than hitting some arbitrary date just because the earth circled the sun exactly one time.
+1
Especially true with the quick evolution of technology these days. Some of the changes in tech these days would've taken years before in comparison.
They buy parts spaced over time (lots), not all at once, and they pay over time as well.
Now in cases of multiple parts, including those not out, but a date is given to vendors by Intel (NDA or otherwise), they plan accordingly (1. select P/N's desired, 2. quantities purchased). For example, they could buy W3680's now, and go with other hex cores if they chose once they ship (not likely, as it's too many parts, but possible).
As per the newer 35xx parts, they can chose to use those to replace the existing 35xx parts in their respective positions (i.e. base and mid point Quads). So the 2010 base could use the 3530 and mid point Quad with the 3550 giving users a clock increase (and are already available as well).
They couldn't, as there's not a full line of hex core SP parts (only the W3680 right now). DP systems they can chose to use either 55xx or 56xx (fits the same boards) to give price points.
For example, Dell offers the L5503 yet, as it still has a place in the market. But they also offer 5680's in the same system (Precision T5500).
It wasn't scheduled to release with the others. Intel tends to release a faster part after the initial launch of a line, and this case was no different.
The W3580 is a good example. The time frame was longer than the i3 550, but it still released after the initial launch (fastest at that time was the W3570).
They can, but it's not in their best interest to do so. There's several reasons for this.
- Sales Period (shorter times means less profits, so release delays mean lost $$$)
- Competition (lost sales can occur if the product release is notably later than other vendors)
- Intel deals on quantity, and gives decent pricing to their direct channel partners (it's noticeable, especially when compared to the Distributor channel = volatile; Price stability figures into this)
Even with the fact Macs are meant to run OS X, which is unique to Macs, they're not entirely immune to things like competition, or quarterly sales figures (shareholders can be picky about such things for some strange reason
).
Maybe they're being lazy. They accuse other companies of being lazy, and never mind lack of updated peripherals for the Mac Pro, the lack of a new Mac Pro while the other model lines get rapid refreshes is certainly a claim of indolence...
I agree that it is lazy on Apple's part to leave the web site unchanged and it is a good point that they've accused Adobe of being lazy. Reality distortion field on full power
In Apple's case, I'm not sure it's laziness, but rather an issue of development time/availability. This isn't an excuse, but rather an explanation, as Apple could hire on additional personnel to deal with the problem (currently it seems that they've too few developers being spread across too many projects). There's been no indication of a hiring spree to counter the additional projects/products that have been added (nothing on their job listings anyway).I agree that it is lazy on Apple's part to leave the web site unchanged and it is a good point that they've accused Adobe of being lazy. Reality distortion field on full power
So it seems like a situation of too few developers on too many projects = delays (and in the pressure to get a product out the door, the validation testing is compromised = poor user experience <bugs>). Given the issues with recent products, this seems to be the case IMO. In simple terms, it makes Apple out to be the "good guys" in the situation.
This doesn't stop them from making accusations against companies such as Adobe, on the presumption Adobe has sufficient personnel to deal with the development process. Apple would differentiate this from their issues IMO (inadequate personnel). This may seem like semantics, but to Apple's marketing dept., this is important (though not explained, as it would indicate there's a "problem" within Apple = personnel shortage).
Ultimately, it's a matter of perspective, but most companies are willing to manipulate the facts/information in a manner to make them out as the "good guys".