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.
PowerBooks and iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
me. 12 is too small. small enough that you can't get any work done. You cannot do work on 1024x768 in OS X. you just dont have enough real estate. if they raise the resolution on a 12", does not solve the issue because then you can't see anything. only solution is to go 14" also to avoid the top end iBook being better overall.
with an aluminum iMac, wouldn't AE be hard inless if they put an antenna on the outside like the powermacs?
yea, but for hardly any more money(a 14" would cost almost as much as the 15") you could get an extra inch, and be able to see even better, but at only an inch bigger, it will hardly be less portable, so what the hell would be the point of buying the 14" if it existed??
if 12" isn't enough for you, then just get the 15" if the 15" is .03mm too long for you, then deal with it rather then tell apple to get rid of it's best selling pb for something more expensive and virtually indistinguishable from the 15"
and how is the 14" ibook better overall? the bigger screen doesn't even have a higher resolution, not to mention pb12 beats it on performence
that sounds cool, but if it adds weight to the pbook line i don't think its worth it; i would rather have portability over novelty.
It's amazing how you can make such an ignorant statement with such all-knowing authority. Perhaps consumer products are currently white, and professional products are currently silver/grey; but was it *always* that way? What color were consumer products, just 3 years ago? (Remember Bondi, Strawberry, and Lime?) We may not be going back to that, but what makes you think consumer products will be white and professional products will be silver/grey FOREVER?!? Don't you think Apple will change their color scheme EVENTUALLY?!? I'd say it's inevitable. Maybe not this year, but it's inevitable.
This would be an interesting thing to speculate on - not only when they will change the colors of the products in the future, but what color's they'll change to. I for one like the white, but I have to agree with you - they'll probably break from the solid white in time. It's just a matter of when and to what.
"What surplus? Apple is legendary for keeping a low, low inventory. It's one of the (few) things investors like about Apple."
Actually, Apple is notoriously awful at accurately predicting demand, and several times in its history has taken massive inventory writeoff charges as a result - effectively blowing many quarters in the process. Further, Apple has also missed many quarters b/c it was unable to fill orders. So, whether it be a gross overestimation or a gross underestimateion, extremely poor inventory management is one of the things that *infuriates* investors about Apple.
And, when measured in days sales, Apple's inventory is persistently far higher than that of HP or DELL (which itself represents the holy grail of supply chain management).
Of course, it's arguable that it's not Apple's fault, that if the market for the CPUs and other non-(PC)standard components like motherboards that Apple uses in its designs were larger and more liquid, Apple would have an easier time of it b/c it could rely on supplier liquidity to rapidly fill its inventory pipeline.
Nonetheless, Apple is probably the worst among high profile players in the industry as far as inventory management.
TM
Actually, Apple is notoriously awful at accurately predicting demand, and several times in its history has taken massive inventory writeoff charges as a result - effectively blowing many quarters in the process. Further, Apple has also missed many quarters b/c it was unable to fill orders. So, whether it be a gross overestimation or a gross underestimateion, extremely poor inventory management is one of the things that *infuriates* investors about Apple.
And, when measured in days sales, Apple's inventory is persistently far higher than that of HP or DELL (which itself represents the holy grail of supply chain management).
Of course, it's arguable that it's not Apple's fault, that if the market for the CPUs and other non-(PC)standard components like motherboards that Apple uses in its designs were larger and more liquid, Apple would have an easier time of it b/c it could rely on supplier liquidity to rapidly fill its inventory pipeline.
Nonetheless, Apple is probably the worst among high profile players in the industry as far as inventory management.
TM
I don't have the time to go find all the information, but as someone who has followed Apple's supply management and inventory for years, you may want to re-check your facts.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement on prediction of demand, but their inventory in days is frequently lower than Dell, often measured in under 24 hours. 4 years ago Dell was the leader, but Apple has given them a run for their money in more recent times. You have probably picked certain notoriously bad product launches and over-weighted those: the cube (massive overestimation) and the powerbooks (massive underestimation).
update: Check out the SEC report filed today -- 3 days of inventory. Not too shabby, when compared to Dell's "staggeringly low four days of inventory" from Q1 '03. (I don't know what Dell's was for this past quarter -- it may in fact be as low or lower than Apple's, but my point is Apple's isn't bad at all).