U.S. Mac Sales Flat in April as iPod Sales Continue to Slide

[The Deepness]

RAM is the only concession Apple have allowed end users to upgrade on their systems but the move to these closed designs like the 21" iMac, Macbook Air etc... isn't a good move.

I dunno. My gut reaction is to agree with you on the 21.5" iMac, but not on the MacBook Air. iMacs and MacBook Pros (true desktop replacements) are designed with power computing in mind. The MacBook Air is designed for ultra portability, not raw horsepower. To expect the MacBook Air to perform on par with, or be upgradeable like, the more advanced laptops or desktops in Apple's lineup is unrealistic. To achieve the desired size and weight, Apple clearly made some design decisions with the MacBook Air that precluded user access to the internals, even to upgrade the RAM, but made sure that what was included more than met users' expectations. Perhaps someone who owns a MacBook Air could chime in, but from what I've read Apple nailed it.

The superior performance bit is over-exagerated. A lot of their systems use integrated graphics and don't use the fastest drives available. For the price difference of £15-25 depending on if it's a 2.5" or 3.5" drive, this shouldn't be the case if they're being presented as "superior" to their competitors when they're still using the same Intel hardware as other companies but combining it with 5400rpm drives or very low capacity and even lower cost SSDs for prices that don't reflect the hardware used.

Again, focusing so much on specs ignores the overall user experience. Superior performance isn't just about speed tests, clock speeds, RPMs, or Geekbench results. It's about how all that technology comes together to deliver to the user the reliable, trouble-free experience they expect. Apple's hardware components usually work extremely well together in all of their products.

I can attest that both my G4 from 2002 and the Desktop G3 from 1997 lasted a long time. The hard drives are a different story. The 6Gb Quantum Fireball that came with my G3 still works flawlessly to this day. I even zeroed the drive to mark out any bad sectors and after 15 years it just keeps on (NOT) ticking. The 40Gb IBM Deskstar that came with the G4 was one of those infamous "Deathstar" drives that fail eventually. I lost some data off it at the time and it locked up when I zeroed out the bad sectors reformating it and died completely. Both of those drives were 3rd party manufacturers but labelled as Apple because they were the drives they chose to include in their systems. Hard drives can fail, Apple can't provide a superior experience when that happens and the Seagate drive recall on certain iMac models over the past few years confirms that

Yes, HDDs fail. It's a fact of life, and Apple has little control over that as they, like most computer makers, don't manufacture their own HDDs. I too have had HDDs in my Apple computers fail and have lost data. My fault for not backing up regularly. No sense pointing fingers, except at where they belong.

The partyline I was refering to is denying the price gouging and claiming reliability and superiority in their hardware that simply isn't true in all circumstances. After the fiasco with the Deskstar, I have a much more organised back up strategy than burning off CDs/DVDs. I can't comment on comparing the relability of Macs with the reliability of PCs, I refuse to deal with any of that nasty Monopoly$oft nonsense unless I'm forced to use a PC in a work situation

Apple definitely charges more for RAM than third party sources. I haven't bothered to look into the prices of other hardware components, so if you insist Apple overcharges there too, so be it. Though obviously not true for all circumstances (and I never intended for any of my assertions to be taken as absolutes), I still contend that for most people in most circumstances Apple's design and configuration choices more than adequately meet users' needs and expectations for a fair and competitive price.

I have to confront the unreliability of Windows and PCs at work every day. Most people in my line of work hate dealing with computers so much during the day that they hardly look at their home PC. Unlike them, however, I get to come home to my iMac, which is a sheer joy to use!

 

[Xiroteus]

I know nobody who bought an iPod new in the last 3 years.

Yep, iPhone works as an iPod touch and my second generation iPod shuffle still works fine for when I require a small player aside from that I do not require any other iPods and I imagine so many people are okay with using a music player that is a little old if that is all they need it to do.

 

[barkmonster]

Again, focusing so much on specs ignores the overall user experience. Superior performance isn't just about speed tests, clock speeds, RPMs, or Geekbench results. It's about how all that technology comes together to deliver to the user the reliable, trouble-free experience they expect. Apple's hardware components usually work extremely well together in all of their products.

Nope. Real world, actual performance. A 7200rpm drive with a large cache in the real world will boot faster, load applications faster and offer more efficient swap file activity which also has an effect on the artificial benchmarks you're happy to disregard than a 5400rpm drive because it has much faster read/write times of both sustained and random data and faster access time.

An SSD even more so. The difference between the stock 5400rpm drive and the SSD is night and day on my system. 20 seconds from cold boot to desktop is better than over a minute, applications launch in 1 or even no bounces, even large applications are 2 bounces at most.

It is 100% real world, not artificial benchmarks and 100% user experience.

I still contend that for most people in most circumstances Apple's design and configuration choices more than adequately meet users' needs and expectations for a fair and competitive price.

They don't, not on any level. 1 minute of looking at the build to order costs of any Mac compared with realworld component costs disprove that 100% without dispute. They're high-priced systems with low end storage. The Mac Mini starts at £499 and comes with a 5400rpm drive that could be a 7200rpm drive for under £10 price difference at Apple's end, it doesn't. Paying another £180 gets you a 2.3Ghz Quad i7 yet it still comes with a pathetic 5400rpm drive worth at most, another £25 or you could look into the build to order options and pay another £250 over the base model and get a 1Tb 5400rpm drive and a 2.6Ghz Quad i7. You can't possibly argue that a 2.6Ghz i7 is worth over £200 more than the 2.5Ghz i5 in the base model accounting for the hard drive can you? Even the stock 2.3Ghz model is charging £155 more for the CPU accounting for £25 extra the hard drive is worth over the base model!

Their only other options are even more insane when you look at what they charge for adding £70 worth of 128Gb SSD in a Fusion configuration.

Bear in mind these are desktops, not laptops, power-efficiency arguments are invalid. (They're invalid for laptops mostly these days too with increases in drive power-efficiency).

I have to confront the unreliability of Windows and PCs at work every day. Most people in my line of work hate dealing with computers so much during the day that they hardly look at their home PC. Unlike them, however, I get to come home to my iMac, which is a sheer joy to use!

That's why I've never had a PC and just used them at work

 

[The Deepness]

Nope. Real world, actual performance […] benchmarks you're happy to disregard…

You misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying better specs (e.g., faster HDD RPMs) don't matter, or aren't better. Of course they are. And to clarify further, most Apple consumers are more than satisfied with the performance of their Apple products. Apple customer satisfaction should back me up on that.

They don't, not on any level. 1 minute of looking at the build to order costs of any Mac compared with realworld component costs disprove that 100% without dispute. The Mac Mini […frothing cost vs. specs stuff and then further outrage because Apple's] only other options are even more insane when you look at what they charge for adding £70 worth of 128Gb SSD in a Fusion configuration.

"Uncle!!!" You're obviously more willing to argue the specific examples of Apple's "higher price/lower performance" offenses than I am, and I don't want be responsible for getting your pressure up too high. I think you're still missing, or simply disagreeing with, my point (not seeing the woods for the trees in a way), which you actually address to a subtle degree in this statement you buried.

They're high-priced systems with low end storage.

Splitting this sentence into its two parts, yes, Apple offers high-priced systems. Apple is a premium brand! They make premium products! They charge premium prices! Part of the mark up is paying for the brand name. Now you can argue that Apple's reputation doesn't warrant the acclaim and the low-spec'd nature of its components doesn't justify its pricing structure (and you've done so effectively!), but that won't change the fact that most Apple consumers (who typically are not represented on these boards) are immensely satisfied by Apple products (existing specs, prices, and all) that more than meet their needs and expectations. Consider them sheep (and even me among their ranks) if you want, but I think most Apple consumers know and expect Apple products (and their components) to be more expensive than the competition, but either don't mind, don't care, or, all things considered, don't consider the added expense to be a price-gouging issue.

The second part of that is the low end storage bit. Apple is leading the charge to get away from local storage and putting greater and greater emphasis on streaming content (e.g., iCloud, iTunes Match).

A poster either here or on AppleInsider stated recently that he's come to believe the Mac-vs-PC argument ultimately boils down to a right-brain/left-brain issue, and I believe that's the crux of our disagreement here. My position is that the overall user experience of Apple's products trumps whatever specs are contained within. Steve Jobs argued as much when he appeared on stage with Bill Gates at the D8 Conference. Jony Ive continuously echoes that sentiment more recently when he speaks of the importance of the emotional connection that must exist between users and their chosen products.

By contrast, you're disregarding that ineffable quality found in all Apple products and fixating on the details of what you consider to be unbalanced cost/spec ratios of the components found in those products and crying foul. That's your prerogative, and your facts definitely support your argument to a degree. But ultimately, I think that argument misses the point of Apple and the products it makes.

That's why I've never had a PC and just used them at work

Likewise! Unfortunately, I need to go to work now, and face those dreaded PCs!

 

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by neutrino23
my 2010 17" mbp runs about 4 hours on battery, maybe more if i'm careful as when on an airplane.




10.8.3

Ah. I'm on 10.7.5 - perhaps they've fixed some things under the hood...

 

[cjmillsnun]

I love how Apple fanboys live in a closeted world where everything is just peachy.

As for "Who the hell is Piper Jaffray", PJ is one of the world's most respected financial firm that has been operating for almost 120 years.

But Gene Munster is a joke. He's been predicting an Apple television set for the past 5 years.

----------

One word "Alienware"

Oh that's a good joke... Alienware are nothing more than Dell in a fancy case now.

 

[IGregory]

Unless you are a gadget freak, its hard to justify both an iPod and iPhone where the iPhone does essentially the same thing. Cost-benefit says go with the iphone not both.