As far as the $2500 vs $4000 comparison goes, here again we have to keep in mind the TCO when pricing machines.
Yes, all of us will have to grant you that top-of-the-line PowerMacs are not quite equal to but very close to the best performance-wise to some of the best AMD/Intel systems--and still initially cost more. On the face of it this seems like either a rip-off or a status symbol chic premium for a slower yet glitzier machine.
But look three years down the road and what will your system have cost you. I worked in a small-scale publishing house that dumped all of their Macs for PCs in 1998-99. The systems they bought to replace them were cheap HPs or occasionally Vaio desktop units, along with 1 Compaq laptop for me (BEGGED them for a Pismo--no dice). What do you supposed happened?
My compaq laptop had to be shipped to Texas and have its defective mobo replaced, which still didn't cure the persisting HD problem it was sent in for. The HP system driver for one of the Pavillions did not even recognize the sound card it SHIPPED WITH. Just in lost labor revenues with those two systems the company probably ate $2000-2500 over the course of one year. Forget about the technical support onsite for various probelms @ $75-90/hr. Yikes! And of course, the 45 known Mac viruses vs the 50,000+ known PC bugs and the long line of security patches for XP come into play as well.
A bulletproof, crashproof, more intuitive computing environment is WAY less expensive in the long run than a rocket fast but less reliable and less user-friendly one. Yes, I know Windows XP gets closer and closer to a "Mac-like" experience, but Apple keeps moving the bar up on ol' MS. Unless you are rendering video 24/7 and need absolute speed above all else, it doesn't make sense to not use a Mac if the criteria is COST. Macs are CHEAPER in the long run.
I ended up buying the exact Pismo my company refused me. Guess how many times I've had it in for service? ZERO. My wife even dropped it from waist high onto a hardwood floor--not even a scratch. My Compaq's latching mechanism didn't last a week.
As far as this actually pertains to the argument on this thread, I would say that Apple does not need to be the absolute fastest, just the best (highest quality, cheapest in the long run, user-friendliest, most secure). As much as we may hate it, Apple can afford to wait out the development cycles of both Moto and IBM until the next generations of better CPUs reach mass production.
Apple no longer cares to be the fastest. They want to be the best. Seeing that most modern computing horsepower is 100-fold overkill for the average user, their strategy makes sense. Once Moto and IBM deliver the goods, Apple will give the pro user a solid-performing system near the top of the heap. But fastest? For Apple, that's just not the most important factor anymore. I for one prefer near-the-top speed with completely unparalleled user friendliness, security, hardware quality, OS, and hardware/software compatability and intergration. I want a worry-free computing experience with no downtime. And I'm willing to pay extra for it up front because I'll make it back and then some in the long run.
But that's me. The thing isn't a toy--I don't own a single game. I don't give a rat's rectum how many frames per second Quake runs on my Pismo. It's a communications tool and an audio/visual arts creativity platform for me, and for those things it is fine. If I get the PowerLogix upgrade it will run FCP same as a 667 TiBook.
Apple is in no hurry to change horses to x86. No reason to. If it weren't for some non-recurring losses that they wrote off this quarter, Apple would have netted $7 milion in a bear market tech-slamming economy. Not bad. Certainly they are not about to make a move of desperation like switching to AMD/Intel chips. WHERE'S THE FIRE?
