Slashdot Mirror
Apple Should Get Out of Hardware?
SQLGuru writes to mention an analyst recommendation being reported on ZDNet. Despite a BusinessWeek article about Apple's record breaking hardware sales, the folks at Gartner think Apple should get out of the hardware business. Calling for the company to license its hardware to Dell, the analyst company says that gains in Apple's hardware sales are simply not sustainable. From the article: "Apple's margins for its Mac business, currently around 40 percent, are only sustainable because component makers such as Intel choose to prop up the business, Gartner claimed. Given that HP has forced Intel to offer it comparable pricing to Dell, Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues. 'As a result of permanently changed market conditions, Intel has been forced to restructure and, in our opinion, cannot go on supporting Apple (or any other customer) indefinitely.'"
is hardware!
They are coming to flood Slashdot with all kinds of comments.
I for one agree. There really is no difference between a Mac and any PC now. It's all the same hardware in a slightly fancier case that costs you a bit more than a not so fancy case.
Right now Apple's hardware is really limiting as it does not have near the flexibility for a BIY or allowing for a good margin of tweaking.
Apple is a bit different because they have MacOSX to differentiate themselves from other PC OEMs.
Along with designs that are different, no neccasiarly better just different; this allows Apple to charge more and gives Apple an advantage that the other manufacturers currently can't compete against. This may or may not change in the future (Vista closes the gap), but currently I think Apple is going ok. Especially in light of their excellent quarter.
Garner should get out of the clue business. The industry trade press props them up and everybody knows they haven't made a decent clue for years.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
1997 called, they want their Apple doomsaying back!
Dell making apple computers would be a bit like repurposing the old Ford Taurus plant to make Ferrari's. Apple's focus of smaller, quality runs and different chipsets/motherboard config's at least gives Dell something to think about in terms of design. It would be a huge blow to creativity if Dell didn't have the Apple pressure to innovate at the hardware level.
stuff |
Not quite "Enough said." You forgot the "Gartner is crap." part...
Are you serious?
Dell sells in two weeks what Apple sells in a year. Corporations, and HUGE ONES, base their hardware, from servers to desktops to laptops on Dell.
No they ain't fancy, but they do work, and work quite well (this post brought to you via a Dell D620).
It's fanboi comments like this that make the Apple Religious laughing stocks.
This used to be the standard advice given when Apple was ailing in the 90's. Back then it was slightly different, as they were suggesting that Apple license out their OS and let others handle the hardware side.
But controlling the hardware is good for Apple. When none of the PC manufacturers jumped onto USB, Apple did. The same with Firewire.
This is why hardware is good for Apple. Because they can innovate like that with the least amount of Red Tape.
Without hardware, they would not have had their successes no matter how awesome Mac OS X - iPod, iMac, their notebooks in general.
Hell, I think they should produce more hardware - like a Newton successor, preferably something small and that can slide into a PCMIA slot to do the syncing and charging.
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
Apple has always centered it buisness model around hardware. Why do you think they have not put out an offical version of OSX that will run on a generic PC? Its because that would be counter to their primary profit center, selling hardware.
It is kind of like suggesting that GM no longer sell cars.
--C. Alan
Yet, the response is always the same. Apple is a hardware company first, and a software company second. Especially now, where they are selling actual intel PCs with their logo slapped on them. Without the income generated from sales of such hardware (and the ipod), Apple could not survive in this market. Mac OS X is a decent OS, but not good enough to convince companies and schools around the world to spend thousands on software to make the transition away from the more commonly used Windows OS.
Perhaps if Microsoft wasn't so dominant in the software arena, Apple could get out of the hardware business, but until that day comes, Apple will always be primarily a hardware company above all else.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Seems they tried that before and Apple was in such dire straits Jobs returned to salvage the company and close down the external Mac builders. Let's face it, Apple has survived because the dictatorial nature of product development at Apple means they can establish the trends and bail on those that don't do well, without worrying about maintaining a library of drivers even an orangitan couldn't keep up with (Ook) The PC/Windows path has Microsoft trying to keep an overweight operating system working on a staggering array of hardware combinations. Small wonder very few actually know what the heck is going on with things and most problems are countered with "did you try updating the drivers" or "Have you tried disconecting things until it works" or "You need to do a full re-install"
I wouldn't agree with having Dell make the machines, either. Their quality isn't a shade of what it once was. Dell made their name with competitively priced hardware which was built almost as solidy as IBMs. Now it's all cranked out in China and is as good as anything else cranked out in China, so there's no real advantage over competitors.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is he saying Apple's core business was seeded by Intel. And that without Intel rooting for them, it'll be the pits, so Apple should branch out into other areas?
Actually, Apple has a good name, with solid products like the Macbook, iPod, and OS X. I don't think Apple will have that mcuh of a problem. People don't run to Apple because of price, they run to them because they make decent, user-friendly hardware. Comparable devices are copies of them, and usually more expensive. If prices rise, Apple will go up a bit more, but will that actually drive people away?
Have you read my journal today?
...they want thier stupid apple-should-get-out-of-harware story back.
And why not, have you seen the earning reports? Apple is on the ropes. Record losses, losing market share, constant layoffs, etc. They clearly cannot support their current business model, hell at this rate they will be bankrupt in a year or two.
I would go even further, obviously they are losing money hand over fist on hardware, but I don't think that OSX thing is doing them any good either. And lets face it, the iPod does not have wireless and is pretty lame. Chuck it all and go with the business that has a REAL future. I of course speak of iTunes music store. Look at Napster, they are racking the money faster than they can handle with just an online music store. That is the wave of the future my friends. I only hope Apple has the good sense to listen to reason on this one, and not delude themselves that they are a successful company. The numbers clearly show otherwise.
Finkployd
First, we'll assume that Apple actually wants to continue their high rate of growth, which may not be the case. (eg, Jaguar could take a bigger market if they licensed their name to Ford ... um ... okay, bad example)
The 40% margins are based on what? Because I would think that were Apple to get 20% of the market (over 3x what it is today), the individual costs of the OS are effectively 1/3 per machine in cost, comparatively. And the larger they get, the more sway they might have.
And let's not forget -- Apple on Intel is a form of advertising for Intel. Apple is very, very good at getting in the press, so Intel might be willing to take a smaller margin in exchange.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Apple... going out of business since 1976.
Maryland State Motto: If you can dream it, we can tax it.
Yeah... unsustainable... like a FOX!<Homer/>
That's why I just sold my computer to buy a Mac Mini.
That's why many of my friends have bought a Mac or have a desire to buy a Mac
Before, when they were on PowerPC, they had very little interest for me, but now that Macs are x86 machines, I intend to sell my Cobalt Qube to replace it with a Mini...
People have lost trust in quality of mainstream PC hardware and software, which is a big reason for growing Apple shipments in the first place. Nobody will trust a Mac from Dell. If Apple allows independent licensees at all, it should be a Japanese company line Sony or Panasonic. Even then there are many dangers. Licensees may not ship timely updates to hardware to run the latest releases of MacOSX. Look at how many PCs are still shipped with Intel integrated graphics which will suck on Vista. Does anyone really think the switch to Intel would have gone as quickly with 5 vendors who have their own investment in PPC macs? 3rd parties may not have support on the par with AppleCare and Genius Bar. By providing a complete package, Apple gives you one place which is going to be responsible for any problems you have with your purchase.
This doesn't mean Apple should design and build everything in house. iPod design is already done by several outside companies and I believe Powerbook is designed by Sony. It's just that they should approve what is actually shipped and how its supported to guarantee the quality.
Good thing Gartner is responsible for such great machines that they can... oh wait, they don't make anything but over-priced analysis.
I've had some decently-made PCs out of the 10 or 12 I've owned, but nothing like the quality of my Macs. I switched for home use a couple of years ago with a PowerBook. I added a MacMini last spring and a quad MacPro recently, and they are absolutely some of the nicest machines I've ever seen since I started as a tech in '79.
Apple would be completely stupid to give up that control and differentiation from everyone else.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Can we PLEASE stop spelling "fanboy" as "fanboi"? It is stupid.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
A few counterpoints: 1. Apple is a hardware company. They make their revenue from hardware sales, not from software sales. 2. Apple makes superior hardware. Have you seen the inside of the Mac Pro? I have one, and I'm very impressed. The only internal cable is for the IDE optical drive. Everything else is modular. 3. Apple doesn't actually make their own hardware. They design it and have it manufactured to specifications. The motherboard of the Mac Pro was designed by Intel and Apple, but is manufactured by Intel. So, if one would agree with me that their hardware is superior, and one understands that Apple does not manufacture the hardware, how would Apple be limited in manufacturing ability, and how would it help Apple in any way to completely commoditize (if that is a word...) the production of hardware to support their OS? When Apple needs to ramp up production, they can choose an additional manufacturer to support their needs. In addition, since Apple makes a majority of their money from hardware, they would need to redesign their business model to become profitable in the software market. And by the way, is Intel really here to "prop up the market" or are they here to make money? I can't imagine Intel is making deals like those with Apple and intentionally losing money.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
is that Gartner should go out of business permanently. This is just yet another load of BS from them, just like "50% of tech jobs will be outsourced in the next 5 years, and as it JUST so happens we have an offshore consultancy agency. Imagine that!"
Nothing but crap comes out of Gartner, how they are still in business is beyond me.
Monstar L
I could probably count myself among the minions of Steve Job since the release of OS X. (And the demise of the stupid-looking clamshell ibooks) I think there are two reasons the analyst may not *yet* be right in suggesting that Apple give up on hardware. First, with a narrow scope of hardware engineered and produced by Apple, they also have a somewhat narrower support requirement for hardware drivers. I know most of this is done by third parties, but even organizing that effort has seemed to be a headache for Microsoft over the last 10 years. Most people's immediate response when their new video card/audio card/etc doesn't work is to blame it on the OS. While this may not be true, I promise Dell, Gateway, or possibly Windows recieved the support call... not the third party. Second, there is really a lot to be said for the aesthetic and simplicity of the Apple design. They have prided themselves with delivering the customer an experience that does not require a 300 page manual or 5 years of experience to unpack their computer, set it up, and be on the internet with their required peripherals. The aesthetic is part of that. If people can have their software easy, they expect the hardware to be the same. Also, the *status* of an Apple MacBook Pro or PowerBook bares some weight in the business world. It turns heads when an executive flops open their Apple at a table full of Lenovos... I see it every day. When there is another hardware manufacturer that can offer Apple more direct competition, I could see them bowing out of hardware. They'll no longer be "innovating".
They refer to Dell as [i]Intel's closet ally[/i]. It also seems to assume that the Intel transition is at its end game rather than the first move of a more elaborate strategy. I always assumed that the transition was phase one and that Intel's motivation for the transition was to get an OS partner that was willing to run with some of Intel's more proprietary technology that MS never allowed to take off. That in turn might have forced MS into accepting it (Apple competitive reasons) and aid Intel in their fight with AMD. Far fetched but...
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackasse s
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Is it just me or has Gartner become a shill for certain companies that would like to see Apple and Linux fail?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Gee with increasing volumes large margins are not sustainable because Apple won't get as good of deals from Intel? Yeah that makes sense.. err wait no it doesn't! As volume goes up, Apple will get better deals from component manufacturers, in general, not worse. Maybe Intel will not cut them as nice of deals, but with increasing volumes, Apple does not need to maintain margins. Most of their costs are fixed. OS development, marketing, industrial design, etc. make up most of their costs, but remain fixed no matter how many units they ship. If they ship twice as many, they can cut their margins in half without being affected.
Either the Gartner people are looking to the very short term or they're out of their minds. The only way to free yourself from the influence of a monopoly is to maintain a complete vertical chain of components, including the one they have monopolized, but separate from their market. Apple doesn't sell their OS to Dell for two reasons. One, it would seriously cut into their hardware sales as people went to what they perceive as cheaper machines and were unable to compete with Dell's market outlets. Two, MS will kill Dell if they tried shipping OS X pre-installed. As soon as Dell had to re-negotiate their OEM licenses for Windows, MS would offer them the choice of being the largest supplier of computers in the US, with the cheapest rate for Windows, or being the most expensive supplier of PCs in the US. Assuming Gartner is 100% correct and Dell took all of that market, they'd still only be selling 13% of the machines in the US and they'd lose almost all of their existing 32% of the PC market selling Windows machines. Oh Dell would love that bargaining chip, but it just might kill Apple.
No, now is not the time for such a move. Everyone who has tried to compete in that market has been killed by MS's lock-ins, even though several had superior offerings at the time. Apple needs to maintain their segregation until either the courts actually stop MS's antitrust actions or until they or Linux has grabbed a bigger chunk of the pie.
They design them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL Apple products built under contract by factories in Asia?
What could they possibly gain by turning their manufacturing over to Dell?
This is not a slam at Apple. I own macs and ipods and I think they design great products. I just don't think there's an "Apple" factory out there churning out the gizmos. Why would they turn to Dell -- a company with a horrible, horrible track record for quality and reliability -- to make their products, when their current business arrangements seem to be working just fine?
$10B in the bank, no debt, 12 profitable quarters in a row, growing marketshare...this needs fixing how, exactly?
The Gartner guys must have mixed vodka with their Red Bull again.
1) Apple NEVER does whatever analysts or other "professionals" say they should do.
2) Apple's MAJOR part of the revenue comes from hardware.
3) The clones did NOT work, remember?
4) Maybe they should license their iPods and upcoming iPhones to Dell as well?
Where are Apple components manufactured?
apple's has a few important differentiators, relative to it's competitors. hardware design is probably one of the more important ones. loosing that is the first step into the abyss.
Currently own and love my Powerbook G4 15", have got a dual G4 1GHz. Got an iPod too. Am coding on the Mac in Python right now.
That said, my [HUGE] office's Dell Latitude D620 gets much respect from me. It's a nicely turned machine, far from crap. I could ask for more ports and better video hardware (the intel video chipset and particularly the intel software suck ass bigtime), but it's really a well-thought-out business laptop.
My wife's Dell Inspiron is clunky-looking, too big for what it is, poorly finished - maybe this is what the other poster was thinking about when he called Dells "crap".
My last 3 Dell experiences have been good ones. My wife's had two bad machines in a row (her Latitude C600 had serious problems).
I've had only one Mac I really disliked, and that was my 1994-vintage Power Macintosh 7100/66.
Apple has a good track-record of bringing innovation to the market, and thinking out ahead of where the rest of the market is. Dell is currently delivering workmanlike machines.
We lose a lot if Apple outsources their innovation to someone else...
I was actually imagining the scenario of Apple moving their hardware business to another company for a little while there. Then I saw "Dell" and had to double check the calendar. Nope, not April 1st.
Even if it is possible that moving away from hardware would be a good future move for Apple somehow, the recommendation of Dell seems quirious to me. Yes, Intel is indeed closely partnered with Dell but there's got to be other options. Even just one "or Apple could partner with ______" would have sufficed and kept me reading. Would there even be an advantage outside of manufacturing and infrastructural communication cost savings to be had? And what of the design teams behind Apple's hardware?
All I know is I sure as hell wouldn't let Dell try to do what Apple does so well.
Starkle, starkle, little twink.
My last laptop was a Dell Inspiron 1100. Within two months of getting the MacBook, the Dell laptop was in the closet. If you were to compare the MacBook with a Dell D620, the MacBook is a wonderfully engineered machine. While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience.
Apple has 4.6% market share versus Dell's 16.5%. I'm sure I could find more precise figures of actual computers shipped, but it seems it would take dell roughly 14.5 weeks to make the same amount of computer shipments that Apple does in a year.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/print.htm?T
"Apple increased its share of the PC market to around 4.6 percent in July this year, according to analyst figures."
http://news.com.com/PC+shipments+up,+but+Dell+los
"The Round Rock, Texas-based PC maker saw shipments rise worldwide by 10.2 percent from the first quarter of 2005, resulting in a decline in market share from 16.9 percent to 16.5 percent."
Yes, they sell a lot. And it's not top quality. From what I've seen there's about a 20% failure rate on machines. (I.e. needs a part replaced fairly soon. Usually the HDs).
Keep in mind that huge corps also base their software on Windows, and that doesn't make that inherently better either. Huge corporations go with the flow - nothing to upset the cart, because that can get you fired. If you're old enough, you'll remember the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" slogan. *That* is why Windows and Dell are prevalent.
really??? so you never touched a large number of dells then.
Out of 250, C640 laptops I had a 25% failure rate. upgraded to D600 and D610 and had a 35% failure rate and a 60% battery failure rate. This failure rate continued through the 2 years the laptops are in service.
Dell servers, big ones, like their top of the line 8 processor Xeon behemoth before they decided that they cant do 8 way server motherboards reliable and got out of them. Died on a regular basis.. Perc cards from dell dying, etc....
just because you have a single laptop that worked fine, does not mean dell products are reliable.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Dell sells about as many computers as Apple does, annually
That's just rubbish. Dell sold 37.3 million PCs last year, while Apple broke a record by selling 1.61 million Macs last quarter. Dell sells far more computers than Apple does.
Dvorak? is that you?
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
that, in 2003, said "IDS is dead", has "failed to live up to the hype," "is a market failure," and "will be obsolete by 2005." Sure Gartner, whatever.
These guys have little credibility left in my mind.
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
If Mac licenses out its hardware, OS X is going to have to support a far wider range of hardware which may restrict advances in the OS in the future.
They'd probably be better off just making version of OS X that can be installed on any Intel based system and keep their premium hardware to themselves. OS X can be installed on VM Ware on Windows already. It's then up to 3rd party companies to write OS X drivers for their hardware.
It's not like companies that sell expensive hardware aren't profitable just because you can buy a $400 e-machine. Mac will profit from OS X on a much wider market and they really won't lose any market with their existing hardware. People buy Mac because of the quality. Not just for OS X.
So they have to decide if they want control or market share. And how much of each.
Work Safe Porn
Apple only has a few computer products and iMacs are probably like 40-60% of sales. Dell probably has something like 20 models.
So while Apple is a smaller manufacturer, they still achieve economies of scale (and high quality) by focusing on a narrow range of hardware.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I am not an Apple zealot. Far from it. But I believe that what draws Mac users to be Mac users would die a horrible death if Dell got their hands on the rights to make Apple hardware. Yes, Dell does a lot of business. But they are not known for reproducible quality. They are known for low end customization (giving people what they think they want while skimping where it really matters). And I don't think that's what Mac users want Apple hardware to be.
Trusting Gartner's eval is a bit like listening to the white house or congress speak about Iraq; You just know that they have their own agenda and worse, the ones behind it, have zip experience or education.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wrong. There is no way Apple will want to become just another boutique hardware manufacturer. Not a chance in hell.
Obviously you forgot the entire Centris and Performa lines.
You probably also forgot how hard it is to upgrade memory in the stupid iMac.
You probably never knew about the B&W G3 ATA problem, where most UDMA devices will experience data loss during periods of high CPU load. On a 300 MHz G3, that's every moment.
You've clearly either forgotten or never knew that the SCSI bus on the IIfx was nonstandard and required a wonky terminator to work correctly.
Meanwhile lately I've been using a Dell Dimension D600 (with a sony battery! I'm afraid! But then, apple uses sony batteries too) running Ubuntu and every bit of hardware on it is perfection. I even got the stupid winmodem to work although it wasn't detected out of the box like every other bit of hardware in my system. (The wacom tablet wasn't autodetected either, but it's RS232, not USB - it's one of those old "Digitizer II" units.)
I'm not saying that Dell is better than Apple, just that your broad generalizations are either ignorant or revisionist. Besides, Apple sends their designs off to Foxconn to be built, you might as well buy something from ASUS - they also use Foxconn.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, let me get this straight,
Dell strikes a sweet deal with Intel after opening up it's systems to the AMD line...
HP muscles in and says it will go to AMD (I assume) unless it gets the same deal as Dell.
Dell and HP are in a deathgrip to maintain market share for the corporate and household WinTel platform, and are being nipped at by Lenovo, BestBuy, Walmart, etc, for market share, house branding, and margins
Apple, which has the luxury of owning premium software that can run on multiple platforms, let alone on an x86 platform, and is probably already paying slightly more (due to volumes) than Dell or HP, Apple is the EVIL one here, and should be punished by Intel asking for a higher per unit cost for components, because Apple is more profitable?
I see this as ludicrous as Goodyear asking for Honda to pay [even] more for the same tire as GM and Ford, because Honda can afford to pay it... x86 is a freakin' commodity, like pork bellies, and batteries (SONY, pay attention!!!). It's an important commodity, but fundamentally, a chip is a chip, and it's just that.
Intel is not subsidizing Apple... Intel is subsidizing the big boy PC maker market in order to stave off AMD and maintain market their share. This article infers that Intel will soon ask Apple to help subsidize this partnership, and apple will be in no position to fight back....
I hope Apple says either "AMD called yesterday and built a proto system on the PLUON chip... It ran OSX without mods... doesn't need another Universal Binary... just plug and play" or "You know, you should come over sometime... the boys in the labs, They built a sweet OS X system that uses a CELL chip from IBM.... Obtw, here's our order for 6million Core 2 Duo and Quad CPUs... volume pricing hasn't changed... correct?"
... Microsoft should get out of the OS business and stick to what they do best - producing mice/keyboard combos. They should also give a try to making swiss cheese, now that they have expeirience with all those holes in IE.
Slow news so lets chug out the same fodder that was written in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 - gettin' all this? 1991, 92, 93, oh look at the time fly, 94, 95, 96 - slight pause for everyone to write about Apple's imminent deminse - 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, oh hey the leaves are changing let's suggest they do the same strategic blunder that almost sank the company during Spindler's reign because after all, Dells are as nicely designed and integrated as Mac right?
Why do I get the feeling that the overpaid fingers typing this crap are either (a) Windows users (YA THINK?) or (b) Unable to get today's dirt on Paris Hiltons' latest drunken blunder?
Last year we bought almost 9000 D610's. Know how many OOTB failures? Less than a dozen (11 if I am not mistaken).
Is there any other business on the planet—other than loan-sharking perhaps—where a 40% margin would be considered a failure? Your local grocer is probably surviving on about one-tenth that margin.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Sure, my Macbook Pro gets a little toasty when i'm playing games or rendering video, but at least it doesnt explode!
I'm not saying that Dell is better than Apple, just that your broad generalizations are either ignorant or revisionist.
So you want to compare a current Dell D600 to everything that Apple made in the past rather than compare it to what Apple has available today? Maybe you need to re-read your own comment.
Wouldn't even be that much of a risk to Apple because it's specialized enough not to be a direct competitor. It would just be another option for Apple users with the need for a computer designed to work in harsher environments. Actually the toughbook could pick up a few things from Apple too like the magsafe power connector.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
IIRC, Apple does not make the hardware. Apple designs the hardware, and contracts ASUS (at least as far as the MBs and MBPs are concerned I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) to manufacture it. Apple is, as it seems to me, more of a lifestyle and design firm moreso than a typical hardware/software company.
To butcher an old saying: Apple doesn't make the steak. Apple makes it sizzle.
Strongly disagree. If you compare prices on similar Apple and Dell systems, you will usually find that the prices are higher on the Apple side, but only 10-20%, and that in the high end the margin disappears and your most powerful systems cost about the same either way. Of course, a clone is always cheaper, regardless of what market you're talking about, and to me that's the bottom line and the reason I don't buy Apple. Actually, there is another reason, which is that Apple does their best to bury their mistakes to help the iFanboys forget that they ever made them. I got rid of it long ago, but I had a First Generation B&W G3 that had the UDMA data corruption problem. Apple's official recommendation was to buy FWB toolkit to reduce the drive down to PIO mode which is slower and makes the IDE chip consume TONS more CPU, which IDE is bad about already; or to buy an IDE ATA card and move your drive to that. A clear Apple fuckup, which they even admitted, and they STILL didn't offer a logic board replacement to the Rev.2, where they didn't make the same mistake. This is a chip used in TONS of other hardware including UltraSparc systems (like the Ultra 1 and 2) so it's not the chip, it's Apple's inability to implement the chip.
But this isn't the part that's most upsetting - the thing that gets me is that when Apple folded their old knowledge base into the new library, they included documents both older and newer than the one I'm talking about, but that one didn't make it in. It is clearly a deliberate omission on Apple's part to try to cover up both the fact that they fucked up a computer, and that they were unresponsive to customers who purchased it. This is of course simply a further illustration of the fact that it's a very bad idea to purchase any first-generation Apple hardware, laptop desktop or otherwise, but it also explains why. Apple's customer support is legendarily bad when they think they can get away with it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Apple makes wonderful machines that work. Dell makes crap. Enough said."
After seeing all those PC games at Gamestop, we might amend that to say ""Apple makes wonderful machines that work. Dell machines that not only work, but they play also."
Where were you when the voynix came?
Dvorak, is that you?
Synchronize your calendar and mobile phone via text messaging.
That's nice... Now I wish someone could explain to me why, if Dell is selling 37.3 million PCs, that Apple would want to homogenize their product to look just like Dell's since Dell seems to have that market pretty much covered. This article is pretty much telling any niche computer manufacturer that they should give up and just sell Dells. You can bunch Alienware into that category, and your local retailer, and Joe Bob who builds PCs from white-boxes down the street. It's dumb, because they're proposing that to compete with Dell, they should offer the exact same product Dell ships, which is what Apple customers are absolutely not looking for. Apple customers buy Apple because they do not want to buy Dell. Why would Apple give up that advantage? And finally, it's not like Apple is treading water here. Steve doesn't need business advice from "pundits" that don't seem to understand what a product is.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
(in millions, except per-share)
Q2, FY'07 Q2, FY'06 Change
Revenue $14,094 $13,428 5%
Operating Income $605 $1,173 (48%)
Net Income $502 $1,020 (51%)
Earnings/Share $0.22 $0.41 (46% )
Now let's look at Apple from their most recent announced results (in their case it's Q4 FY06 vs. Q4 FY05):
Q4 FY06 Q4 FY05
Revenue $4.84b $3.68B
Net Income $546m $430M
Earnings/Share: $.62 $.50
(Slashdot keeps taking out the spaces, which is why this looks funky.) So, even though Dell has a little more than 3x Apple's gross sales, Apple is the more profitable company. Dell's profits dropped by 51% between Q2FY06 and Q2FY07, while Apple's profits reached new records. Moreover, Apple's profitability and market share are both increasing, while Dell's is decreasing.
And Apple would want to outsource manufacturing to a much less profitable and quality-conscious company why?
Crow T. Trollbot
MS supported USB only from win98, afair.
Windows95c, on the install disc. And you could get USB to work on Windows95a and Windows95b with a driver from Microsoft or the manufacturer.
Please, they aren't even pronounced in the same way!
Why? I dunno to possibly make a shitload of cash?
Sooooo...Apple should get out of the hardware business because they're making alot of money? And how is Intel "propping up" Apple? They sell processors and chipsets to Apple just like they do to Dell, HP, Lenovo, and etc. I thought that was called a "business relationship"? Or maybe I'm missing the point...
http://www.bynarystudio.com
Obviously you forgot the entire Centris and Performa lines.
I have a Performa. It still works. We replaced it with a G3 iMac, but we didn't remove it for years. Only in the last year has my mom migrated from Claris Works to AppleWorks on the G3. If I could find a use for the Performa, it'd still be running.
There were of course reasons behind that change, but if they wanted to go Intel why not the Itanium range instead? The really bad side of all this is actually that we are now basically depending on one single CPU provider for all PC:s with a few competitors that are in the backwater. AMD is the biggest competitor to Intel but it's still x86. As it is now it is more a question of how long SUN will hold on to the Sparc processors and how long IBM will stay on the track with their PowerPC processors. Alpha-processors has already been killed as well as MIPS and even earlier Motorola. The HP PA-RISC processors lives on in a way in the Itanium processors, but for how long? (flamebait here) Some of the "dead" processors still lives on the fringe in embedded systems, probably more due to the fact that there have been a lot of people around actually familiar with the quirks of each on assembly level than on other merits.
In all, most hardware vendors seems to end up using the same building blocks (for good and bad) and has to distinguish themselves by allow the parts to play in concert and provide know-how and service to the customers.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Blah... If I want a PC to play games, I would build one. I wouldn't get a Dell.
"the USB move was probably the smartest platform move apple made"
That was a terrible move: very anti-user. Apple would have been much better off phasing out non-USB ports only after the number of non-USB devices had dwindled a lot. What Appel did really screwed the user: making a machine without necessary standard-of-the-day ports in order to force the user to buy dongles or new peripherals because Apple thought that it was somehow immoral for users to use non-USB interface devices. (I've got a nice parellel-port printer I can still use on most PCs because they still have a port. Why? Because the printer is STILL A GOOD PRINTER, and PC manufacturers tend to respond to what the users need rather than Apple, which has fits of forcing morality like this.)
Where were you when the voynix came?
I mean Why?
Apple makes good computers that people like, and Dell makes crap.
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
they're not very credible. apple is a top-5 computer hardware seller again in the retail channel. they're trying to put a spike in what they see as a vampire. pure and simple.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Gartner will say almost anything you want them to say if you fund the study. I've been in IT for 21 years and this is an absolute truth.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Dell sells in two weeks what Apple sells in a year.
You fail arithmetic. Also, GPP isn't about sales figures, it is about quality. Ford outsells BMW, but Ford makes crap and BMW makes nice cars.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
The only "good" dells are the the expensive ones, like what you have at work. the cheap $495 models are just that cheap.
oddly enough the expensive dells are the same price as Apple's. So go figure you pay for quality and Apple won't sell below a certian level of quality.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Wasn't Apple, like, actually doomed in '97?
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
I'm not talking OOTB. I'm talking MTTF of about 3 months.
It's fanboi comments like this that make the Apple Religious laughing stocks.
Interesting that you should mention stocks.... Despite Dell selling significantly more (cheaper) computers than Apple do, Apple is still worth more (about 15 US Billion more) than Dell, a gap which has been widening all year.
While not the whole story, it's certainly enough to give pause for thought when mulling over whether, compared to Apple, Dell sells 'tat' or not.
AFAIK it's inaccurate for the OP to suggest Dell sells computers that are any less likely to work than Apple's (I don't expect there is much in it either way), but I think it's fair to describe the average quality of a Dell system in other respects (features, design) as being comparatively pretty inferior.
It's no secret that Dell competes almost entirely on price (something they do astoundingly well), only rarely on features and almost never in innovation.
sounds like a good reason to me.
More likely though is that now they've started to get a serious peice of the music hardware market, they want to push their pc products more on the back of it.
And PC is the correct term, Apple created the term PC, which applied to Apple computers/all proper computers around at the time.
Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it.
Excuse me? I look around at fellow IT developers and quite a few of them have accepted OS X.
Furthermore Apple has done a great job growing really useful framrworks in the OS like Core Image and Core Data. There are an ever expanding group of developers for OSX who have seen what a pretty good development environment (XCode) and a well thought set of frameworks can do for productivity.
I know the Apple fans out there will fight me to their death, but the facts don't match up with you. Apple is slowly making the transition...
I won't fight you, I don't need to - for the obvious progression is to use Windows for legacy apps and switch everything else to the Mac. Bootcamp is Apple's 3270 emulator - it lets you keep using some old applications while moving forward.
Or really parallels is, Bootcamp is a slightly less convinent form of the same thing.
If you think Apple is anywhere close to giving up OS X just as it is exploding in popularity and usefulness then you might have something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, Dell's total revenues are only about thrice as large as Apple's. The difference in machines shipped is probably not much different. While Apple might have higher margins on its machines, it doesn't sell the kind of high-end server setups Dell does.
In any case, if you want to talk quality, look at the Consumer Reports comparisons. Apple is consistently on top, based on statistics about customer satisfaction and repair rates.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, especially in an IT environment like /., but in the library world Garntner is considered to be a very, very unreliable source. Gartner has the reputation among the special library community (read:Business Research Libraries) as a heavily biased source in favor of current advertisers. If you spend money advertising with Gartner, you get favorable reviews. Don't spend on advertising, you get poor reviews or ignored.
I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time. In fact, even if it were common business practice it would make sense to do the opposite just to be able to point a finger and say "See, we don't really do that". None the less, it is the rep in much of the business library world not that it seems to matter to our IT department.
As the title states, consider the source. Valid advice IMHO for anything you read on any topic from any source. Hey, even slashdot lacks a modifier for accuracy. Doesn't that seem strange?
Until Dell and its OEM brethren start producing hardware that are mainstream fashion symbols, Apple will have no trouble maintaining its explosive growth. People in general don't want bloated hardware that does everything they don't need to do. They want hardware that gets the job done, and looks really nifty and suave while doing it. Apple has been able to do a pretty good job of this so far, and while some manufacturers (Dell comes to mind) have made many improvements to the usability of their hardware, they still have a long way to go.
if they wanted to go Intel why not the Itanium range instead?
Because they're not stupid.
Itanium combines the nastiest problems of the very first RISC chips with the complexity and heat problems of the horrid Pentium 4 core, combined with and Intel's special ability to miss the point in instruction set design. I don't believe it has a future even in minicomputers, but for personal computers it would be a disaster.
I've used Itanium, programmed on it, and I hope to never have to do so again.
Code generation is SO hard that the only way to get decent performance is to perform test runs of the final code to let the compiler find the hot spots and optimize for the common paths. It requires cross-module optimizations... moving copies of code between calling and called subroutines. The ISA exposes internal implementation details... Itanium 1 code had to be recompiled to take advantage of the larger bundle size in Itanium 2. The performance penalty from not doing so was like running under emulation.
This would be like having to recompile your code for Core 2, and maintain separate versions for Core and Core 2 processors. You'd also want to recompile any time any of the libraries you used changed, because the cross-module optimizations could break, though I suppose you could just give up more performance and just optimize your software internally.
And if they didn't like the heat from the G5... my god...
One quick comment, but Vista closes the gap briefly. When was the last major update to Windows prior to Vista? 2001. That's 6 years between upgades, and the changes we've seen between versions haven't been particularly significant.
Windows is rapidly becoming a victim of it's own success. Making substantial changes to the code is difficult because they have to maintain compatibility with all the crap that's already out there. Apple has been able to go back to the drawing board and start with something totally new which has allowed them to be far more innovative.
So while Vista will close the gap, it'll then be another 5-6 years before the next Windows version and Apple will come out with many useful changes in the meantime.
Aside from that though, I believe Apple would be foolish to change their business model. Their selling point is that they control the whole experience. Apple's always have the impression of being more expensive, but that's because Apple doesn't generally make low end systems. They make higher end high quality systems and then make sure everything works well.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Eventually apple will announce the costs of maintaining OSX doesn't meet the interest of the public, and they will start going to head to head with Dell selling windows desktops.
Funny, I'd be more inclined to think the opposite. It seems more likely to me that, as Vista crashes and burns and IT departments reject it for it's insane piracy-protection measures, Dell and other PC vendors will look at Apple's success and wonder if they should start offering their own optimized versions of open-sourced software. Not that I think it's entirely likely right now, but more likely than Apple dropping OSX.
Developers haven't rejected OSX. Some developers just haven't been releasing OSX software because OSX lacked the market share to be a profitable platform for them. That appears to be changing, as Apple is getting more and more mainstream attention. In fact, I've heard a lot of developers say that Apple is a great platform to develop for, and that Xcode is a great environment (can't vouch for that, since I'm not a programmer).
Finally, I just can't imagine Steve Jobs will ever, so long as he's in control of the company, ship Macintoshes booting into Windows by default. I know, people doubted the Intel switch, said it would never happen, etc. But this is different. You're talking about Steve Jobs and Microsoft Windows here.
"Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it."
Dude you are joking right? I am afraid to reply because I just don't know it this was meant to be funny but the sarcasm didn't make it through.
OS/X is a great OS for developers. I develop for Windows and can not wait to start the port to OS/X The only problem is I may have keep working on the Windows version as well.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Didn't these guy read Apples recent fourth quart report. To suggest that Apple change anything would not be very smart. All they are saying is It can't go on like this forever. Did you hear what Steve Jobs said some months ago. To paraphrase -- "having only a 4% market share is good because we have the potential to double the size of the company if we could only gain another 4%" If we beleave the recent report then Apple is well on the way to doubling it's size.
Apple's products are better because of the software, the industrial design and the build quality. But the real kicker is that if you want to run Mac OSX you have to buy Apple hardware. People will do that. Apple can always command a higher price.
Seems like Apple is making a shitload of cash just fine without being dell.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Getting out of the hardware business has been a great strategy for Amiga, NeXT, BeOS, Sun, Transmeta, ...
It should work great for Apple, too.
As usual, the loudest criticisms of Apple are the ones based on the machines of a decade ago. Honestly, who still cares about the Centris/Performa/LC series or even the G3? What's next, a scathing critique of System 7?
Also, do the Mac fans still get to be snarky about PCs in general because Packard Bell and eMachines made such awful clunkers, or is this tactic reserved for the Apple-bashers only?
0 1 - just my two bits
That way you can get a crappy, unreliable computer and crappy, unreliable tech support.
Of those 9000 laptops I can see:
About 25 that have been dropped, water damaged or otherwise user destroyed.
Two that had unexplained video problems
47 that have had battery issues (not holding charges typically)
14 that have had the locking mechanism on the front damaged.
Still looks FAR under the 20% number you are giving and I have a much larger install base.
At the risk of sounding like a Mac fanboi, I can say that I honestly believe that Apple makes a very solid OS and some of the best and most durable hardware I've used.
I do a lot of traveling, and my PowerBook 12" has held up way better than any Dell or IBM I have previously owned.
All of this is not to say that the laptops are the best, or that no one else's are even close. There are other laptops by other companies that perform very well.
Apple has something good going with their hardware, and I hope that they'll continue to make it as such. Some people like it for its 'not another black/beige box' looks. Others prefer it for its durability. Hell, car bodies are barely made of metal anymore.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
I think there are a lot of hold-outs from when Dell didn't suck. Dell used to make very good machines at reasonable prices. They weren't the cheapest (that was Gateway), but it wasn't the most expensive, either.
I've got a Dell D300 that'll be seeing its ninth birthday next january. In that time, it got a solid five years of use as a workstation, and another three and a half as a server for my parents. I shut it down over the summer, simply because they didn't need it anymore. I opened it to find it full of drywall dust, because apparently nobody had thought to remove it from the closet while they renovated the basement last year.
I replaced that Dell D300 with an Inspiron 8200. It wasn't very good. It was a flimsy, awkward thing, the screen had to be replaced after a year, and after the three-year warranty ran out, the DVD drive started to get sketchy. And that was a $2k machine too --- I shudder to think what the $1000 boxes are like.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The clones did NOT work, remember?
The clones didn't work because there was no huge pool of manufacturers making Power PC based motherboards, and no huge pool of potential customers running something else on their Power PC boxes who'd be interested in buying Mac OS to run on them.
I've never been quite sure WHY Apple decided to promote clone hardware. It seemed like they were overextended trying to make too many models of Macs and this was a way to let them shed the unprofitable models and concentrate the product line, unfortunately the cloners ALSO decided to target the profitable part of the market.
Jobs solved the problem in a much more straightforward way... albeit one that eliminated people loking for a conventional desktop from their customer base. They briefly opened that up a smidgen with the Mini... but using the GMA950 chip in the Intel mini... oy...
(A1) Sun switches to AMD, windows boots natively, hardware sales go up.
(A2) Sun gives Solaris away for free, runs on non-Sun hardware, hardware sales go up more.
(B1) Apple switches to Intel, windows boots natively, hardware sales go up.
(B2) ... ?
Apple should let people download MacOS X 10.5 for free from apple.com, and allow it to run unsupported on non-Apple hardware. Sun Microsystems has been using the same tactic for quite awhile now (in order to compete with Linux) and it has had a hugely positive impact on their hardware sales (even if it seems ironic).
Apple would be ingenious to let windows users switch to MacOS X 10.5 on their existing PCs as an alternative to upgrading to Vista (which many don't want to do). I bet that a large chunk of people who made the switch to Apple software would then switch to Apple hardware as their next purchase.
It may seem illogical at first, but if Apple's hardware sales went up after letting windows boot natively (which logically seemed the death of OSX, but wasn't?), and if Sun's hardware sales went up after letting windows boot natively AND giving Solaris away for free, why wouldn't Apple find the same success?
Seems simple to me.
-Apt
Well, you and the guy you're responding to are making two different statements which aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Lots of huge corporations could be buying lots of crap. In fact, I'd probably hazard to say that this is probably the case.
However, Dell machines aren't all crap. Their low-end machines are, the Dimensions you can get for $300 including monitor. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone unless you really can't afford better. but even in that case, they're the best crap computers you can get for $300, so it's not really worth complaining about.
Their business-line desktop computers are actually really good. The Optiplex and Precision workstations, for example. High-quality. Not necessarily the cheapest way to go, but generally worth the added expense. And part of the reason businesses go with Dell is that they have good business-level support. Their consumer level support might be a bit dense sometimes, but if I have a component die on me, I can get a new one shipped to me, to arrive within 4 hours of calling Dell and talking to an English speaking American who knows some things about computers.
I have no connection to Dell other than being a pleased customer, and I'm an Apple user (typing this on a MacBook Pro right now). Dell computers aren't as pretty as Apple's, but the only real problem with them is the OS that most of them ship with.
World domination isn't the only acceptable competitive strategy. Survival works too. In fact, it's smartest to use the right strategy that is appropriate for your position.
The amount of risk involved in a choice depends on what you have to lose. If you're surviving, but just barely, almost everything is risky to you, because you could lose everything. If you're not even surviving and you know you're fucked anyway, nothing is risky to you because you will lose even if you don't try. If you lead by a huge margin, very few things are risky to you, because it would take an astronomically huge consequence to take your lead away from you.
Apple first started with a big lead and a dominant position but quickly lost it. They've been using a conservative survival strategy ever since. They aren't so screwed that they can take on any old crazy risk, but they also aren't so ahead that they can afford to take on big strategic risks. They have to play it safe, given where they are at. They've been doing a good job of employing the survival strategy, and they've been using it to gradually dig their way back out of a dangerous hole. They should keep playing that same strategy for quite a while.
Licensing MacOS to PC makers would be a high-risk move for Apple, which they can't afford right now. PC makers would demand that Apple sell them Mac OS X at a price lower than what Microsoft charges them for Windows, which would probably cut into the profit margins Apple is used to enjoying on the OS installed on its own machines.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
"Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it."
It's the the other way around. Their hardware is quirky, non-standard (but less and less so) and often slower and is missing parts compared to run-of-the-mill PC's costing far less. OS-X? Now THAT is what shines.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If you look on a new Apple box something is missing! The "Intel Inside" logo. Intel is irrelavent, AMD is irrelavent, PPC was irrelavent.........the complete package from Apple is what is relavent.
Apparently you aren't much for studying the past either. Power Computing was a Mac clone maker started by folks who came from Dell. They were based in Round Rock, Texas (where Dell is). They made Mac clones that came in cases that were quite similar to standard PC cases.
Mac users overwhelmingly bought Power Computing systems over Apple systems in the market segments in which Apple allowed Power to compete. (Power Computing was not allowed to make laptops, for example.) This almost caused Apple to go out of business. And yes, even though that was before the iMac, Apple still had nicer looking computers than most other companies and had been winning design awards for years. For example, the original Mac made it into art museums because of its design. I remember a coffee table book on the subject of Apple hardware and the design awards it had won that came out while Gil Amelio was CEO.
Apple customers are, on the whole, actually quite rational, despite what some may think. It is just that they have different priorities than other computer users. They care about those priorities that would favor purchasing a Mac (things just work, the system is quite elegant, few viruses, etc.) than those priorities that would make you use Linux (lower cost, can run on older hardware really nicely, excellent security - few viruses, freedom from corporate control) or Windows (lost of choices of third party software applications, lots of hardware vendor choice, etc.)
The fact is that most people behave in a rational manner. The fact that they make different purchasing choices has far more to do with things like their needs, their individual preferences and priorities, etc. Also, if you are currently a user of a platform there is a cost to staying with it vs. a cost of changing.
And people like to feel good about the choice they have made, so they sometimes come across sounding like fanboys and fangirls. People used to argue vehemently about Atari 800 vs. Commodore 64 on BBSes too.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Well, the G3 Performas were perhaps the biggest lemons in Apple's history, but other then that they were all fairly solid machines, though by no means the top performers, Centris's too were quite nice though they were missing the dedicated FP Processor that the Quarda's had (And Quadra's were BTW fast and fairly bullet proof computers)
You mean remove a screw, pop out the protective cover, and insert RAM?
This point I'll give you
All SCSI requires termination, this isn't an apple thing. Apple did use that strange 25 pin SCSI connection which quickly became standard, not that it mattered much since other then high end workstations and servers, nobody else used SCSI because they were too cheap.
lol... hardware perfection you say, and yet half the hardware wasn't recognized, and you battery may explode at any moment. Ummm ok. Seriously though a high percentage of Dell's are just fine computers, the difference is that while some people are satisfied with "it works" other demand that it "works well".
Did Apple design the ASUS stuff? you seem to be confusing manufacturing with design, not the same thing.
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Apple hardware is made in China too. At least the ipods are dropshipped from Shanghai
The fact that Apple now makes computers that run Windows is even more evidence that they are infact a hardware company first and foremost.
Similes are like metaphors
Let's also spell "laughingstock" as one word.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
Which is surprising because I usually perfer to use a slower 3 year old laptop, rather than the brand new one I just baught.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Apple dying, should get out while they can. Film at 11.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
God, I hate analysts. If their business advice is so great, why don't they go into business for themselves? Those who cannot do, simply complain.
"Analysts" have been "analyzing" for YEARS about how Apple hardware sales are going to decline. Well... it's two decades later and they're still doing alright.
The only "Apple" manufacturing site left is the facility in Cork, Ireland!
"Manufacturing" is a bit of a misnomer, as all the do is assembly parts from Asia!
Mostly iMacs and Desktops with some xServes as well.
The two reasons they left Cork intact is that Ireland have a low tax rate,
and they can fill cto orders for the European market within a few days.
They also have a large call center there as well.
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
Non-standard? Maybe, I guess it depends on what "standard" you're alluding to. "Doesn't come with Windows pre-installed" could be considered "non-standard", just because it's unusual. But "missing parts"?
What does this have anything to do with what I said? Maybe those folks at Power Computing left Dell because they didn't like what Dell was doing and wanted Power Computing to do things differently. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have stayed at Dell in the first place? When I said Mac users like what Apple has to offer, I wasn't referring to the case that the computer came in.
And then give all the money back to the shareholders.
The hardware business is a low margin business. Yes, it can be a cash cow but that is not what Apple needs. Apple needs higher margins. It would make complete business sense for them to ditch hardware with the exception of maybe the iPod. IBM ditched their computer manufacturing business to Lenovo and look at their profits in the most recent quarter.
OK. Qucik. Love Apple. Love the slick designs. Hate DELL and the boring computers they put out. GM should start building Porsches too! Please! At least give Lenovo a shot at it? Sheesssh
David Vasta iSeries(AS/400) Admin & Junkie
"Apple will come out with many useful changes in the meantime."
[joke]
Bah! It will take them until 2018 to come out with OS XI - I mean come on, how many years have they still been on X ??
[/joke]
"But this one goes to 11!"
Kind of like Porche contracting out to the company that makes the Hugo?
Why would they turn to Dell -- a company with a horrible, horrible track record for quality and reliability -- to make their products, when their current business arrangements seem to be working just fine?
Apple would not "turn" to Dell. We are talking about a strategic alliance. Quality issues could be dealt with when Apple lends their expertise in quality during manufacturing.
Apple's current products may be made in Asia, and that's fine. But Apple can benefit from an alliance with Dell. Dell would offer expertise and knowledge of mass distribution, packaging and marketing, along with manufacturing efficiencies.
Apple's strengths, as some have said are product design and function. Compaines that put too many resources in innovation are proven business losers. Dell is mass marketer and mass producer with long term competitive advantages. Apple needs to change their business strategy before the iPod fad dollars run out. I'm looking forward to seeing what the iPod clones do the Apple's revenues onces the spread thoughout the world.
Apple never made CPUs, hard drives, or video cards. They are in the plastic injection molding business. They make fancy looking aluminum boxes with plastic trim, hip logos and pulsing lights. They take the best hardware they can find from other vendors and put it in pretty encosures. And it's worked very well.
Upper management does. Unfortunately.
John Gruber's excellent Daring Fireball blog has an excellent opinion on this article.
e s
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackass
Ford did not own Lamborghini.
It was Chrysler, who was responsible for the creation of the Diablo(Lee Iococca said the door sills on the Countach were too wide). You are correct that Chrysler raided some of the technology(ex. brakes on the Viper), however Chrysler sold off their interest in Lamborghini due to difficult financial circumstances(which lead to the Daimler "merger").
Lamborghini is currently owned by VW.
the entire Centris and Performa lines.
I remember them well. They were perfectly good computers - they just had too many redundant models which was confusing when someone asked "which Mac should I buy?". Also, you probably mean the Quadra line, not the Centris line. The Centris line didn't actually last very long, there were only three models, and they were great systems. I do remember that some people who bought the Mac IIvi thought that their particular model was discontinued too quickly (when the Centris line was introduced), but I'd hardly call that a serious problem - nor is it a shortcoming of the Centris line.
You probably also forgot how hard it is to upgrade memory in the stupid iMac.
Which model are you referring to? I have installed memory in most of the G3 iMacs including the original model and it wasn't any more hard than most computers of that era.
You probably never knew about the B&W G3 ATA problem, where most UDMA devices will experience data loss during periods of high CPU load. On a 300 MHz G3, that's every moment.
I had one of these as a development box and I never noticed the problem to which you refer.
You've clearly either forgotten or never knew that the SCSI bus on the IIfx was nonstandard and required a wonky terminator to work correctly.
I never had a IIfx, but I remember that SCSI from that era having all kinds of termination problems. Yes it sucked, that's one of the reasons why SCSI was replaced by USB and Firewire for peripherals. How is this point relevant as a serious criticism of Apple's computers today?
Apple sends their designs off to Foxconn to be built, you might as well buy something from ASUS - they also use Foxconn.
Most computer and electronics companies use contract manufacturers in Asia. However, I think that Apple's computers are actually made by Qantas, not Foxconn. Foxconn makes the iPod. Again, I fail to see the logic of your point. As you say, it is Apple's design. While manufacturing is important, the design both of the electronics and also the industrial design is also important. ASUS doesn't have Jonathan Ive.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I've become more and more convinced that if we shut down Gardner and McKinney and the rest of the horrible slop shops, we'd actually have a better world. The MBA is a vastly overestimated degree. Far superior? Work for a summer in your uncle's business. Meet a payroll for a while. Anything you don't understand about that? You probably never will understand it. I want the old American masters of business back, not these effete, number-crunching, elitist morons. Gimme Henry Ford any day. Okay, without the antisemitism. Gimme Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Republicans. Seen one recently? All these morons pretend like there's some science to this whole thing about business. I'll give you the scientific part: buy low, sell high. End of course. Now hit the street, maggots. When you actually make something like the Mac, or like Dell, or anybody, then we'll listen to you pimply consultants. I know what an autoworker is, or a gandy dancer fer chrissakes, but what's a "Gardner" except a parasite who's well-connected enough that he thinks his sorry little job can't be outsourced to Bangalore.
The Gospel according to lolcat
No, they don't. If you look at the numbers, Apple is close to overtaking Gateway as the third-biggest computer maker, selling only 38,000 less units than Gateway last quarter with a total of 1.61 million Macs sold.
Have you seen your nick lately? Shouldn't you be off waiting for an IE7 patch? It's comments like yours that make posting smackdowns on Slashdot a real joy on a Thursday.
"Sufferin' succotash."
the business intelligence market. Gartner's business model and high margins only work because Pointy Haired Bosses (PHBs) pay exorbitant money to buy these reports. However, the recent and continuing trend of downsizing in the American market place will impact the number of PHB's. As the number of PHBs increase in India and China, Gartner should investigate getting out of the business intelligence market and selling their business to ... you get the picture.
In all fairness, it is really not much of a problem anymore (now that non-USB devices have actually faded and that the floppy really has died). But for several years, you had to pay extra with a Mac to get removable storage and standard ports that came built-in on PCs costing far less. The single button mouse sucked too compared to the double button model as well. I was not referring to "Windows pre-installed". Referring only to hardware. PCI slots helped to. They've come a long way from the years when Apple even had bizarre plugs on the back of the computers just for the hell of it and wonky incompatible monitors.
Where were you when the voynix came?
My school's hardware audit figures put our Dells (1439 desktops, 217 laptops, bought in the last 2 years) at 6% failures which led to an unusable system (So things like motherboard, CPU, RAM and 9% total failures (Including complete and partial of all components). Cutting this down to under 3 months from first installation to first failure, the figures are at 1% and 3%.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Who said they ahould?
"It's dumb, because they're proposing that to compete with Dell, they should offer the exact same product Dell ships..."
They said nothing of the sort. They said "Apple should concentrate on what it does best -- create software -- and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure." In other words, don't sell the machine at all but work with Dell to provide Macs using Dell's infrastructure and distribution. They don't have to be the same Dell boxes that run only Windows.
"Steve doesn't need business advice from "pundits" that don't seem to understand what a product is."
Like their advice or not, I'm certain Gartner knows what a product is. Not sure you know what a "pundit" is though.
That meme died a long time ago. Macs, particularly the iMac and the Mac Pro (which is $1,000 less than the equivalently configured Dell workstation), give you a LOT of value for your dollar.
Apple-haters really need to find some new material.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Actually, the Dell Inspiron 1100 had a Intel Celeron 2GHz (single CPU) while the MacBook 2GHz Duo Core (dual CPU). So it was only slightly slower for the most part. The transition to the MacBook was completed when I got my work environment in Windows 2000 (no activation issues) to run in a Parallel virtual machine. After that, I was able to run my Mac and work from home at the same time with no performance penalty.
I guess if I got my processors for effectively free like Apple appears to to, I'd be using Intel too. Of course, given Apple's overall market share, can't be that many Core 1/2 Uno/Duo processors anyway. What do you bet that AMD sells more Athlons to Dell now than Intel sells Cores to Apple.
Apple has become a Vanity Producer. They stay in the hardware more because of their vanity than anything else. Like people who self-publish their own books.
Given that HP has forced Intel to offer it comparable pricing to Dell...
And when did HP manage this feat?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Apple did that in the 90s,remember the beige boxes by Daystar, Motorolla, PC Computing, etc. Nearly killed Apple, not only did the hardware look ugly, it didn't really improve on any operation quality.
After that Apple got back into hardware and since then we have seen the candy iMacs, G3, G4, G5, intel dual core, etc. A lot of those came with pretty groundbreaking innovations (USB, firewire, bluetooth, etc) as well as the killer looks of the sleek cases.
Since Apple has control of the hardware they also have better control to make sure the OS consistently works with the hardware, A reason Windows is such a big thing (same With Linux) is all the various cards and drivers (and the not so perfect variations of 'standard' cards and drivers) It also happens in Macs too but the end user rarely sees it (and then not for very long) because Apple OWNS it all and can take care of it.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Yeah, and Britney Spears albums sell more in a year than Mozart concert recordings.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Speaking of the past, Steve Jobs killed the clone program because they could not make up the loss of hardware revenue with operating system revenue. Lesson learned - Apple is truly a hardware company that differentiates its products with great software.
From Wikipedia:
One early use of the term "personal computer" appeared in a November 3, 1962 New York Times article reporting John W. Mauchly's vision of future computing as detailed at a recent meeting of the American Institute of Industrial Engineers. Mauchly stated, "There is no reason to suppose the average boy or girl cannot be master of a personal computer."
The term is much older than Apple. What Apple did is popularize it. It became synonymous with IBM compatibles because of the name of the original IBM PC (PC for short).
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The article didn't suggest Apple become Dell, it suggested Apple work with Dell.
I agree! I had to waste a whole five minutes taking off a tiny panel on the bottom and sliding the RAM in!
"Sufferin' succotash."
So you're complaining about Apple now based on what their hardware was like before PCI and USB?
and to those of us with a Windows machine, it still matters. Every time (every stinking time) I open an Explorer window to the "machine" level, I have to wait 5 seconds while Windows dutifully checks the floppy drive so it can see what to display for A: Never mind the fact that there is not now nor has their ever been a disk in the drive, never mind the fact that the last time anyone used a floppy was two versions of Windows back, the PC manufacturer still installed the drive and Windows still wastes time checking for a floppy.
It wasn't morally offensive, it was just a nusaince. I too am glad to see the death of them.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
No, no no. The DB25 SCSI was on practically all the Macs from the Plus on up. There was something weird about the SCSI BUS, not the connector, on the IIfx and it required a special terminator. Until powerbooks it was the only black SCSI terminator apple shipped (to differentiate it.) Pictures here. Other bits:
And lots of woes including SCSI termination here:
Trust me. The IIfx was just wonky. It's all especially funny when I think about my old Sun hardware that would run with or without the external terminator.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe, maybe not.
Currently Apple is doing well and is very profitable, why change when you don't have to?
USB only really became useful a couple of years ago due to the "killer app" (cheap thumb drive) and the digital camera takeover. Otherwise, you are right. I withdraw my complaint.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
I've seen Gartner do this before. I'll tell you what they're smoking. They're smoking big fat rolls of $100 bills freshly minted down Redmond way. Good to know the old boys are still shillin'
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
"While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience."
No, they care about user experience. Big corporations want Windows, multiple sourcing, and suppliers who know how to sell and support in large volumes. That's the user experience they care about, not the brushed metal themes, the fancy packaging and the grammatically superior dialogs. That's why they buy Dell and not Apple.
are only sustainable because component makers such as Intel choose to prop up the business
Intel is in the chip business. They are in the chip business to make money. Other than getting a contract to sell Apple some chips, where is this prop up business thing? I do not have any knowledge of Intel using a bunch of Mac's on the desktop.
I have a feeling Intel may have many more Dell PC's than Apple PC's in their operations.
The truth shall set you free!
Apple's supply chain is second to none now including Dell. The reason why Dell is in trouble is because others have caught up on their supply chain efficiencies. That is why HP is overtaking them now. Apple will not gain much in handing over hardware to Dell. Instead they will lose the uniqueness of Apple computers.
1. Quality engineering. Apple couldn't get this from Dell. Dell makes a lot of crap. They make some good stuff too, but why would they build quality to boost someone else's brand, if they are willing to sell crap under their own brand? Their brand would take a huge hit.
2. Margins. Apple still makes most of their money from Mac hardware. A big chunk is from iPods and music, but very little is from software. Would you rather be making around 30% on $1000-$4000 Mac systems, or smaller margins on software at smaller prices? Their revenue model would be completely gone.
3. Integration. The point of the Mac/iPod platform is lost without end-to-end design integration. The halo effect, the success of the iPod/iTunes, the elegance of using a Mac with Apple software, all of that would be severely handicapped.
All in all, a deeply, deeply bad idea, that has been debunked before.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Same here. Three jobs now which were almost exclusively Dell for the users (until a recent switch of new desktop units to HP due to better pricing, but still largely Dell in place), and the failure rate has always been low. The only exception was a small rash of motherboard replacements on some Latitudes (all same model), where about six had to have them replaced by a tech, and that was back around 2001. Those few visits were the only times that I have ever met Dell techs.
Meanwhile, I hear many complaints about the HP notebooks used by friends and former colleagues elsewhere, and of the few people I know who have or use Apples, about half have had some kind of hardware problem, from failing fans to flaky memory to a bad logic board. I still recommend people get Apples if they're interested, because my personal experience has been largely good, but Dell has, in my anecdotal experience, the better record.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
> Obviously you forgot the entire Centris and Performa ... to upgrade memory in the stupid iMac ... the B&W G3 ATA problem ... On a 300 MHz G3 ... SCSI bus on the IIfx ...
Nice troll. You're talking about 6- to 15-year old technologies. The IIfx was released in 1990. And you want to say that because they made an error on a computer design back in 1990, all their products are crap now?
For the record, To this day I have a Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997 (which I've since upgraded to a 400MHz G3) that still fires up reliably and does all its work admirably well.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
FireWire licensing was reworked in 1999 and is no longer prohibitive at all. Even FW 400 is much faster than USB 2, despite the lower clock speed. I don't get why it hasn't trumped it in the market, but I'm guessing cost of manufacture is a factor.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
With a failure rate like that, it's hard to believe that Dell could stay in business considering its low margins. Somehow I think you're exaggerating a bit. No surprise, considering it's /.
I will say, though, that your experience is far better than the failure rate I've experienced with Apple products. The only Apple product I've owned (out of 8) that hasn't failed (yet) is my Nano. My 3 macs have each had a motherboard failure (100%), 1 hard drive failure (33%) and my only notebook both a power supply and battery failure (100% each). 4 out of my 5 iPods have failed (80%). Frankly, every iPod will fail in short order whether it's a bad battery or a bad hard drive. In contrast, I've own roughly a dozen Dell notebooks over time and have never had a failure other than addin memory not supplied by Dell. Apple has no room to throw quality stones at Dell or anyone else. When you consider all the quality issues with Apple's Intel notebooks it's laughable that people continue to argue that Apple is somehow a cut above others in quality.
Here's one I got from an article a while back:
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You probably never knew about the B&W G3 ATA problem, where most UDMA devices will experience data loss during periods of high CPU load. On a 300 MHz G3, that's every moment.
That problem has nothing to do with CPU load. It was a bug in the ATA controller, a rev. 1 CMD646 chip by CMD Technology (now a division of Silicon Image). The bug is well documented and occurs on a lot of PCs as well. With few exceptions, the problem was limited to two-drive configurations, using drives that Apple never shipped.
You've clearly either forgotten or never knew that the SCSI bus on the IIfx was nonstandard and required a wonky terminator to work correctly.
It required filter caps on its termination power to prevent certain misbehavior. It was somewhere between a passive and an active terminator. If you use any modern day active terminator, it should work. Indeed, there are plenty of modern configurations that require active termination. In many of those cases, the IIfx's terminator would fix those problems for a lot less than an active terminator costs. IMHO, the IIfx was several years ahead of its time, not buggy.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Apple has been using USB for a long time. Ever since the original iMac in the late '90s, Apple has been using USB as the standard port for keyboard/mouse at least.
If you compare prices on similar Apple and Dell systems, you will usually find that the prices are higher on the Apple side, but only 10-20%, and that in the high end the margin disappears and your most powerful systems cost about the same either way.
Actually, you're out of date. Last year Apple systems were priced at approximately 14% higher than equivalent PCs, not Dells in general. This year, they are actually cheaper by about 5% to equivalent machines. You'll note, I don't say Dells, I say equivalent machines. That is because people conducting real market research soon discover it is hard to find an equivalent machine from Dell.
Apple's customer support is legendarily bad when they think they can get away with it.
Yeah, um, unlike all the other companies out there? Take a look at Consumer Reports for the last 5 years. Apple is one of the best for support, not the worst. You actually have to compare them to what else is out there. Sure, Apple support can really suck an egg, which makes it about twice as good as Dell's customer support that sucks two eggs.
the only difference is the CPU anyway. Centrises lack the FPU or the MMU or something, I forget which.
It's way the heck harder to get to.
Sorry, I forgot to mention revision 1. If you got a late one you wouldn't have had the problem. If you kept the original drive, you would never see the problem either; it happened with MOST drives, but not ALL, and particularly not the one they shipped.
It's relevant because it wasn't just a problem with "SCSI from that era". First of all, in that era, Sun was making SCSI buses that would work with or without the external terminator, I know because I owned a couple of them. Second, the IIci didn't have this problem, nor the IIsi. They just totally botched SCSI on the IIfx. It actually took a different kind of terminator than all of the other Macintosh systems, and I mean that literally; the IIfx terminator was required for termination of external devices on the IIfx, and does not work with any other macintosh (or, AFAIK, any other computer.) Instead of fixing the problem in the design, they just went ahead and kicked it out the door with a noncompliant SCSI bus, and issued a bullshit terminator. If you add internal devices you have to add some kind of filter to the bus in most cases, google around and you'll find it.
Incidentally, SCSI has not been replaced by USB or Firewire. It exists to this day and is up to 320MBps last I checked, while the fastest firewire is 1Gbps, or ~125MB/sec. (The fastest firewire supported by apple is still 800Mbps. There are plans for 1.6Gbps, and 3.2Gbps over fiber with copper for power, but they seem unlikely to ever pan out given the lukewarm reception firewire has received.)
It's possible that they changed, but AFAIK Apple's been using Foxconn since the Macintosh II, and stuck with 'em.
Given that Apple's designs have been seriously flawed in many respects in the past, I'm not sure I trust them today, either. In fact, I'm sure I don't. Not that I trust anyone in particular - I like to build my own PCs, and shop around. Laptops are stickier because you can't build them from parts; in that category I just shop around. Although I have to say I've never been exceptionally pissed off at a HP laptop, and compaq laptops are amazing compared to what they used to be like. Even my Presario 1692 was an amazingly solid piece of hardware and that was a K6/2. It never gave me any grief.
But the point is, the manufacturing is very much a serious part of the reliability, and Apple has screwed the proverbial pooch on their hardware designs plenty of times in the past.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry, I meant the original one. It's really sad, first Apple has too many model numbers so no one can tell what the hell they're buying; now they have too few product names, so that the same name applies to four different products that are related to one another only in that they have built-in displays. I shouldn't have to add "CRT", "Desklamp", or "17 inch LCD" to the name of a product so people know what I'm talking about. Maybe we should start referring to our computers by year :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
well, much like Wilbur and Oswald didn't actually build the first plane, just the first decent one, apple applied the term pc effectivelly for the first time.
Well that's how it seems to me
Dell's stuff is OK. Their main selling point is management software that comes bundled with the hardware. It's true-- if you want a simple 1U with integrated GbE, PERC RAID controller, and so on, you can't get much cheaper than a Dell machine.
IF, that is, you actually want to use Dell's software. We'd been running OpenBSD for years on Dell hardware, and then Dell threw us for a loop and started substituting in integrated Adaptec controllers to replace the AMI ones for RAID-- without notice. This was around the time when OpenBSD was threatening to remove the Adaptec drivers from the tree. So for awhile, we bought AMI PCI-E cards to replace the Adaptecs, and that worked fine, but then I did the math... and I realized that Dell's value was in the software, which we weren't using at all.
For a lot cheaper, I can put together a 3U machine from "commodity" parts-- all the parts can be bought off the shelf except for the chassis and PSU (which I get from SuperMicro). All of the parts are exactly what I want, well-supported in OpenBSD, and replaceable. The last point is a major consideration for us. What do you do when an integrated controller goes bad in a Dell machine? If it's under warranty, you call and get it replaced. That can take days (although to Dell's credit, you can get it much faster if you pay for a more expensive service plan). With commodity parts, all of your servers have the same basic configuration-- you keep extra parts on the shelf (even the mobo and chassis), and you still save. The big savings comes from not having to pay $1-2k/yr per machine for a support contract.
The eureka moment came to me while I was waiting for parts to arrive for a machine that was covered under a contract. I was thinking-- if only I had spare parts on hand this would have been fixed by now...
Anyway, all of Dell's other stuff, consumer items, is just the same as anyone else's. It's probably good, sure, but it's probably the same (or very similar) to what you'd get from HP or whoever else builds PCs these days. In my mind, it's crazy to buy a machine like a Dell through a VAR like PC Connection when Dell is essentially a VAR themselves these days. They don't manufacture anything unique. Dell obviously cuts costs by selling directly to consumers, so their volume discount almost cancels out the assembly cost. But you could probably build the exact same machine by buying parts from NewEgg.
Fixed that for you. Lots of programs stopped working between 10.3 and 10.4, which annoyed at least me a bit. Apple forced people who upgraded the OS to upgrade their programs as well. I presume there was a cost/risk analysis somewhere, and Apple's said "yes" while Microsoft's said "no".
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
yes, it is very well documented that the problem occurs when the CPU is loaded. go look it up on lowendmac or something if you don't believe me. I'd tell you to look at the original apple document on the problem, but they deleted it so that people couldn't refer back to their fuckup.
The same chip was used inside Sun Ultra 1, 2 and 5 systems, without errors. So what if some PC hardware has the same problem? Either the problem is not in the chip or it is possible to circumvent it because the ultrasparcs using the same chip do not exhibit the same problem.
The problems have nothing to do with multiple-drive configurations. It does deal with drives that apple never shipped, but so what? They didn't call it an "AppleIDE bus", they called it an "IDE bus", and that means that they are obligated to follow the standard and support compliant devices. That is a particularly pathetic excuse that you have made on apple's behalf.
Needing active termination (or some wonky substitute thereof) for fast-narrow SCSI is not ahead of its time. It's behind the time, because other computers did not share the same problem.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
....and PCs had USB a little before the Mac did. It was around for years until the proliferation of devices that really needed it came along.
Where were you when the voynix came?
... that Intel is supporting Apple via lower pricing than it provides to Dell and HP?
This seems to be, on the face of it, an outrageous claim that Gartner offers up with apparently not a shred of evidence.
It has about as much credibility as Gartner's claim that Apple does software better than hardware. Apple's hardware is pretty widely recognized has having excellent quality and strong, innovative designs. And when one compares equivalent products (so that one might have a basis for comparing costs), Apple comes in either under or very close to Dell, yet manages to return profits significantly larger than Dell does (caveat -- we don't have per-unit profits to compare, although we can look at things like profits from notebooks and compare them).
Is Dell sponsoring the next Gartner conference?
That's just rubbish. Dell sold 37.3 million PCs last year, while Apple broke a record by selling 1.61 million Macs last quarter. Dell sells far more computers than Apple does.
Let me put it another way that might be more enlightening: The growth in Dell's volume (ie, the difference between the number of machines they sold this year and the number last year) is greater than Apple's entire volume for the corresponding time period*. Apple is a distant fifth worldwide behind Dell, HP, Acer, and Lenovo.
* Note, this has been true for the last few years, but this quarter may not be due to Dell's recent problems.
5. (or is it 6.?)
Apple's cases have a small feature that allows you not to have to run Windows if you don't want to. And still get everything done. In less time. Without viruses, adware, or spyware.
Apple keeping control of hardware allows them to maintain a quality product and a competetive edge. Once they release that to the 'least common denominator' generic PC manufacturers they not only have a harder time guaranteeing a quality experience to end customers, but they have to shoulder the burden of support and compatibility that currently not having to deal with allows them to flourish. It was a big deal for them to make a leap to intel because of the 'keep up with the latest' burden that is undoubtably taxing them right now, but it was a careful and strategic move on their part that is paying off. But throwing their OS on everything including the kitchen sink, dealing with support, adding 400 million drivers instead of 10 and keeping all of those maintained or hoping vendors do (but again not having guarantees) is something that is a HUGE burden and can sink companies. Only microsoft has ever really pulled it off and it took them a monopoly and somewhat forced compliance to do so. Linuxes and such out there are getting far more widespread in terms of compatibility but again that is a burden shouldered by individual vendors and 'nix contributors. If Jobs wants to guarantee that your apple will run slick as shit, he can't really afford to pass that particular buck.
If that was the case, comapnies would be buying boat loads of Inspirons instead of lattitudes. Dimentions instead of Optiplex's. The reason comapny;s buy opti's and latti's are the fact its a enterprise supportable platform. If you have a D series Latti, then you just have to stock D series gear. One of our captains had his D600 replaced with a D620, didnt have to change the docking stations he had, his floppy, or any of the accessories. You dont get that with platforms like Inspiron, or Macbooks. I'm not a fanboy or mac-bashing (i think the new macbooks are damn sexy), but apple isnt an enterprise platform. There's no managment frame work that come close to openmanage or hp's insight. the fact you can have SMS push out a bios or firmware update to a few hundred desktops is why you have corperations buying them by the pallet.
Good gravy! Assuming this is true, I wonder why you keep getting Monday Morning stuff from Apple. My wife and I have owned over a dozen Macs and four iPods between us, and they all still work fine. In fact, my Performa 631CD (note its age from their touting that it came with a CD-ROM drive) is eleven years old and still runs fine. The only failures I've had was a fan bearing going bad after five or six years of intense use, one Quantum Fireball harddrive that went sour six months after warranty, and a six year old mouse that wore out. Oh, come to think of it, my wife did have a couple bad pixels on an old laptop, but Apple fixed those for free (even though she didn't have Applecare) and had it back in her hands less than three days after she got the empty FedEx box. One former coworker had a year old iPod that wouldn't hold a charge, so he took it to the Apple store and game him a brand new, higher capacity iPod for free.
In fact, we have two boys under the age of seven on Apple hardware and even they aren't breaking stuff.
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience with Apple, but my own has been that their hardware is well-built and, when something does go wrong, they fix it quickly and often for free after the warranty (ie the laptop screen and the harddrive).
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Yeah, I'm just saying that USB isn't recent. It's been commonplace for what, 10 years now? So more than 10 years ago when Apple was under different management, using totally different hardware and a totally different operating system, they had a couple ports that were not the same as what most computer manufacturers used.
Hmm, which market should we be in...
:)
A) Niche computer market, 3% of sales, 40% margins on the hardware, a relatively small software R&D division that helps move hardware at 40% margins... oh yeah, and to make some extra cash (and provide an incentive to buy more hardware), we sell the new versions of the software (10+ years ago, gave them away). Thy does this make sense, each year or so, I can upgrade iLife + OS for about $200... Well, if I'm on big hardware, no biggie, if I use a Mac Mini, well, for $200 I can upgrade, or for $600 buy a new machine... provide an incentive to buy the new machine. We know the Mini has lower margins, say, 33%? In that case, Apple makes $200 if you buy a new machine, or $200 if you upgrade the software... Apple doesn't care.
Or, license OS, this means two separate markets
B) Intel PC Operating system market. Let's look at this market, two major players. One, a monopolist with 95% marketshare, who struggles to sell upgrades because of their entrenched base. Most computers NEVER get an OS upgrade. The competitors charge about $35 for OEM Windows Home, "free" for Linux, or dirt cheap, probably $20 for an OEM Linux OS that the vendor supports... Gee, what a great market. Even if Apple can collect a premium, $50 OEM pricing... that means that OS X machines sell for $100 more than their Windows counterparts, and Apple makes $50/machine. So if estimates of quadrupling market-share are real, then Apple breaks even. Even the "Apple is expensive crowd" that really wants to pirate the OS for free, sets an upperbound of quadrupling marketshare... Gee, so if they are right, then Apple breaks even... brilliant move... but I guess they might sell more copies of iWork...
C) Now that OS X is generic, available at retail for $129 (and BitTorrent for $0), Apple goes from their niche market with 40% margins to the EXTREMELY competitive PC market. The entrenched players hold about 50% of the market, and local grey-box manufacturers + home built machines are about 50%. In this industry, margins of 8% are huge, because once you pay people to put the equipment together, ship stuff around, etc., you cost more than the guy building in his basement. No room for differentialization, etc. Maybe Apple will do "insanely great" design work, collect a premium off the market, and make 10% margins...
Entering the OS market SUCKS. It sucked BEFORE Linux became popular, giving away a Unix-like OS for free, and it sucks now. Nobody but Microsoft has EVER made big money selling operating systems, because people DO NOT BUY THEM. OEMs buy them cheaply, but nobody buys operating systems.
Apple is where it is because it found a great niche and milks it... milks it for all its worth... makes 5x margins that the industry dreams of. Sure, Dell makes more money most of the time... BUT ONLY Dell does it. Apple has a nice growing market, an iPod where they grabbed a premium, and now the iTunes music store. They'll get into new markets, but only where there are good margins.
Entering into overly competitive markets and abandoning decent monopoly pricing power (economics term, they aren't a monopoly, but since Windows PCs aren't a perfect substitute, they get to charge price of PC + substitution "cost" - $1 and sell machines) to enter cutt-throat competitive markets...
It's not a recipe for success, it's a recipe for destroying shareholder value.
Alex
FF Market Share will drop over the next year.
Actually it is based upon multiple methods of information gathering, including spot checking and anonymous tests.
Wait a second, you take a jab at Consumer Reports' methodology and then you make an assertion like this based upon your views of what you read in a particular forum? Is that supposed to be a joke?
You make a lot of generalizations and assumptions, but the truth is the best data to date indicates Apple's support is better than average and you have no data to refute that claim. If you objectively look at the information, the best guess is the Apple's support is better.
Have you ever considered that a lot of UNIX types know exactly what they are doing, but simply have different priorities than you do? Open source, free software is a feature of software, but considering only one feature rather than the whole package is absurd. I use OS X, Windows, Linux, and OpenBSD every day. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I'd love to have a primary workstation that was completely open source. I'm just not willing to give up all the features of OS X or all the available library of software for Windows to do it. The sad truth is, for a lot of tasks, their is no good Linux solution. For a lot of tasks, Linux itself, regardless of the applications, is inferior. I don't have the time or money to get the features I want added to Linux and it is falling further behind on the desktop, not catching up. When Linux has functional system services I can use and a two step upgrade path to a new machine, via a firewire cable, let me know. Until then, Linus will be on servers and Linux and Windows will both be running in VMs under OS X on the desktop.
"I'm sorry you've had a bad experience with Apple, but my own has been that their hardware is well-built and, when something does go wrong, they fix it quickly and often for free after the warranty (ie the laptop screen and the harddrive)."
I've had no problem getting Apple to fix my equipment, though I have great problems getting Genius Bar time. I did take my PowerMac to CompUSA (failed MB after 10 days) and I had loads of problems getting them to fix the machine. That's not Apple's fault, but they were certified to do the repair.
Frankly, I find all the arguments over quality tiring. I've had bad experiences with Macs and not Dells, but they are made largely out of the same parts. The fact is that fans, power supplies and hard drives are the highest failure rate items (in that order) and all manufacturers use common suppliers for these things. I don't consider Macs to be worse hardware than Dells but I don't consider them better either. The key to longevity is keeping parts cool, and now that Apple uses essentially identical logic everywhere, I think you'll find there won't be a lot of difference.
Apple didn't pay Gartner to produce this report and release it to the public. Somebody (maybe a hedge fund that owns a shedlot of AAPL and is having trouble covering it's losses in oil futures) that wants Apple to cannibalize it's potential long-term growth in exchange for a massive short term gain did.
0 1 - just my two bits
You don't need legacy ports? Then don't use them!
Apple's edge isn't OSX, it isn't the iPod, it isn't softly glowing lights, it's the overall style. Have you seen DELL's concept of "Style"? The big thing is to partner and outsource and break down a company into its core competency, well, I say Apple's core competency is style, and they have to keep all the parts that are intimately tied to their being able to deliver on the style. OBVIOUSLY, they are already outsourcing some of their manufacturing, or we wouldn't have viral-infected iPods floating around.
The day I trust an analyst is the day I trust a politician.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Just who are these Gartner folks and why should anyone listen to them? The only time I ever hear about them is in stories like this- "Analyst firm Gartner claimed that Apple should stop doing what they're doing and start acting like every other computer company".
Seriously, every time I see these folks mentioned it seems like it's in this sort of context. Analyst firm Gartner claims that $company would do better if it started following the herd.
egypt urnash minimal art.
We're a mixed shop with employees using both Macs and Dells (Optiplex and Latitude). Here's my experience - we've brought in 4 Mac laptops over the last year. 3 MacBook Pros and a MacBook. We have had:
1 MacBook Pro needing motherboard replacement
1 MacBook Pro dies the day after it was received
1 MacBook internal wiring melted next to heatsink causing heat monitor to trigger shutdown
The 2 MacBook Pro's had to be mailed out for repair. This took two weeks (both have Applecare btw) to get the computers back.
The Macbook was able to be repaired at the local Apple Store. Of course to find this out, we had to book a time to meet with a "genius" and take the thing down to the store for evaluation.
We've purchased 7 Dell Latitudes in past year. We have had exactly zero failures.
If we did have a failure, we have a support plan which means a tech will show up onsite and fix it. We pay for next day coverage on the laptops although you can get 4 hour if you want.
When is Apple going to offer a proper corporate service option? I don't want priority for booking meetings with geniuses. I want a real service plan that means I don't have a computer I paid $2000 down for two weeks.
We have been deploying more Macs in the office and I am a supporter of OSX but I hate the fact that I need to have a higher ratio of spare Macs on the side than PCs because I may need to wait two weeks before I can get one fixed.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I haven't had much experience with mac computers, but the small amount I have had, I've hated them.
Having said that...based on iPods (and pretty much ONLY iPods), hardware seems to be the only thing apple is good at. My iPod locks up all the time, the software leaves a LOT to be desired (compared to, say, an RCA Lyra)...but the damn things are durable as hell. I've got an iPod that I bought off this girl at school 'cause it was broken. All it took to fix it was a firmware flash. It's still working great...even though it's probably at least 5 years old now. It freezes all the time, but the only hardware I've had to replace is the battery. Compare that to my bro's RCA lyra, where the software is quite possibly the best I've ever seen on an MP3 player, but the harddrive died less than a year after getting it.
People have been speculating about the licensing of OS-X to Dell, etc ever since Apple's transition to Intel. I wrote a set of scenarios talking about that here:
s cenarios.html
http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2005/06/apple_
Essentially, Apple can make it work only if they tightly restrict the hardware & models that other companies are allowed to install OS-X on. Imagine for instance that Dell can sell OS-X, but only on *three* different machines, each of which is approved only after lengthy technical review by Apple engineers. Apple wins because Dell can leverage its business customers to sell to an entirely different market than Apple currently has access to. Dell wins because it gives them some serious product differentiation from HP and Gateway - who Apple will never license to. It all depends on Apple maintaining the control over the number of different models and hardware drivers that Mac OS-X must support. Eric
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
And you're saying that is an indicator of product quality? Evidence, please.
Well, your install base is definitely larger than what we have. The crucial difference I can see between your and our installation is that we have Dell Desktops, not laptops. FWIW....
And, just to be clear, the 20% is a guess on my part. I'm not in charge of installing the systems. I've seen a 50% failure rate in my group, though, and I hear from other groups that they have some issues too.
;)
Then again, maybe we just write abrasive code
What Apple did was drive USB into the mainstream. No, they weren't the first ones, but by dropping all the legacy support and going USB-only, they signaled a change, which has yet to be completed on the PC side (most PCs still come with COM and PARALLEL ports.. God help us all).
Sometimes you need those ports. We used to use high end RIP (raster image processing) server software that required the use of a parallel port dongle. We got bit by the no legacy port problem when upgrading to a new server. That new server sat unused for over 6 months until the company released a USB dongle. And yes we tried adding in parallel port card, but the damn dongle required an onboard port.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Err, hello? Surveys of customers is reality when it comes to customer satisfaction. Why would you possibly think otherwise? Are you really arrogant enough to propose that you know better than the consumer what he liked and didn't?
(Actually, reading the rest of the post, it seems you probably are. Nevermind.)
OK who overpays these idiots and keeps them in business? They've been dead wrong in just about every ball-licking report they've put out on Microsoft!
Errr, SP2? That didn't count as a "major update to Windows"? It did in my books.
I haven't had any issues with a properly-configured Linux desktop setup; I have several USB and Firewire storage devices that won't mount due to an "I/O error" when trying on Mac OS X, and Windows has to reboot half of the time when I use different computers up at the college, while all I have to is wait for it to mount under KDE or GNOME, or even XFce.
Plus, the Kubuntu desktop is up there, as well, and I've found the KDE GUI to be easier to use than both Windows's and OS X's. In fact, when coupled with Compiz or Beryl, and a theme, it's nearly impossible to tell OS X and KDE apart, aside from the lack of any trademarks from Apple. Plus, it's fairly simple to add more effects to Compiz or Beryl, since it's all a modular plugin system, and there are more graphical goodies I've seen for them than Mac OS X.
What are you smoking? Celeron is the low end of the Intel single-CPU line. Core Duo was the high end of the dual-CPU line (above Pentium D and now below Core Duo 2), with a newer architecture and a smaller nm process. The Duo should absolutely smoke the Celeron.
I think that most customer surveys are flawed and you have no chance to figure out what's going on inside a customer's head without a focus group or similar, where you can find out why they gave particular answers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
why would they want to do what some bozos with interest in wintel tell them what to do
Garter is a shill for Microsoft always has, always will. Mac is just exists to undermine
why EVER quote them here? stick to legitimate sources. (LOL)
Incidentally, SCSI has not been replaced by USB or Firewire
For the purpose of plugging and unplugging external peripherals like scanners and hard disks, it has been replaced by USB and Firewire. The fact that it is still used by uber-geeks inside of a computer's case has nothing to do with the context in which you brought up SCSI. As far as the particulars of the IIfx, I can't say since I didn't own one. However, I will say that sometimes Apple is an early adopter of standards which is why, for example, my PowerMac 7100 had an AAUI ethernet adapter instead of 10 Base-T. A year after they shipped that computer, it was an obviously bad decision, but I'm sure seemed reasonable when they designed it.
However, I think that Apple's computers are actually made by Qantas, not Foxconn. Foxconn makes the iPod.
It's possible that they changed, but AFAIK Apple's been using Foxconn since the Macintosh II, and stuck with 'em.
That is just completely wrong. The Macintosh II came out in the 1980s when Apple still owned and operated all of their own factories - most of them in the united states. I think they still had factories in California at that time. Foxconn makes the iPod - they do not make laptops for Apple or anyone else.
Given that Apple's designs have been seriously flawed in many respects in the past, I'm not sure I trust them today, either. In fact, I'm sure I don't. Not that I trust anyone in particular - I like to build my own PCs
You do not design your own motherboards. You do not design electrical components. Apple does. Their designs are as good as any and better than most.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I haven't had any issues with a properly-configured Linux desktop setup;
I'm not talking about "problems" as in bugs. I'm not talking about UI effects. I'm talking about missing features. I got a new laptop from work a few weeks back. I rebooted my old laptop into firewire mode, plugged in a cable and turned on the new laptop. It asked me if I wanted to install from the old one and I clicked "yes." Then I walked down to the coffee shop, grabbed a bite and a drink. That was it. All my configurations, settings, files, programs, security certs, user accounts, and everything else was sucked across the firewire cable. With a straight Linux machine it takes me days of configuration to get all those configurations back on new hardware.
The other feature I mentioned is system services. One spellchecker that works in all programs and shares a dictionary I customize. One grammar checker that works in all programs, regardless of if the developers of vi or Adobe InDesign or SubEthaEdit even knew such a feature was available. The same goes for scripts, language translation, online dictionary/thesaurus lookups, automatic bibliography citations, and hundreds more. Because OS X has provided a way for applications to share functionality with one another or from a plug-in I no longer have to copy and paste from my IM application into MS Word to check spelling or grammar. I can translate text from one language to another in any program. It saves me hours every week and I catch spelling errors in my posts and chats and IRC conversations and e-mail and Web mail and everything else, that I would have missed before.
Those are the two examples I listed, but they are not the only ways Linux is behind as a workstation. The thing is, I don't expect Linux to catch up anytime soon because all the people who really care about these things, have moved to OS X on the desktop. I use Linux on the server and I use it on the desktop for testing compatibility and for a few programs that I like better in KDE than in a generic X11 on OS X. But it just does not compare in general.
Until you try different systems for your everyday computer you just don't know what is missing from one or another. Don't mistake not having "problems" for Linux not being inferior in many ways.
Is it not so obvious here that Gartner is just trolling? Why are there so many biters?
The highest-resolution scanners still come in SCSI variants, although firewire is mostly replacing that. Printers still sometimes come with a SCSI interface, especially high-end devices for professional output but also some workgroup-class printers still come with it as an input.
But that doesn't mean that one should have blind faith in their products. In fact, it is generally accepted as an axiom that you should never buy the first revision of any Apple hardware. I don't have the same level of trepidation when buying something from, say, HP or IBM. Not that IBM is even making laptops any more, and I would never have bought an IBM desktop because they're so fond of nonstandard hardware.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Err, hello? Surveys of customers is reality when it comes to customer satisfaction. Why would you possibly think otherwise?
I suspect the previous poster was only repeating something he heard, but did not really understand all the issues involved. The truth is consumer reports surveys are often less than ideal in that many of them are self selecting. That is, they mail them about and those who are motivated return them. This tends to result in answers from people who are very happy or very unhappy, since the others don't bother answering.
That said, it is still a lot better than nothing, and when you apply the same methodology across the boards of computer vendors, your error cancels out, to some degree. Also, Consumer Reports uses other methods, including purchasing machines themselves and anonymously testing the support lines. It isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than, "they are worse because I had one bad experience" or "I don't know why I think they're bad, I just do."
Apple does this all the time. It does make for a vibrant 3rd developer market, with opportunities to charge for updates at more points of failure, and the new technologies and frameworks you adopt with each OS revision typically provide enough incentive for people to put down their hard-earned cash. Unfortunately, this also makes OSX unacceptable for corporate use, as in-house solutions are much more difficult to support if APIs keep getting deprecated or significantly modified. Also, you tend to have to recompile with the latest version of XCode as major OS revisions are released, or your apps will have stability problems, meaning that you can't just keep using the same binaries for long periods of time. There are advantages (3rd party developer sales, enticing new features on a regular basis) and disadvantages (app stability and compatibility, increased effort for developers, lost corporate sales). In the consumer market where Apple thrives, they can get away with this tradeoff and offer their users more drastic progress. It costs them the corporate market, however, so that must be ceded to Microsoft, who will ensure backwards compatibility to developers who use their APIs, in exchange for less fundamental innovation and end user features.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Linux is also geared to API stability to the extreme, and offers great value to corporate users. Since all the code to Linux is open, you can ensure that an API will be there in a usable form if you need it. As Linux takes away Microsoft's bread and butter, MS will react violently, trying to make big interface changes to compete with Apple in the consumer market, while keeping their corporate customers appeased with backwards-compatibility, and locked in with licensing agreements. This is a trap for them, though, as corporate customers don't care for fancy visual doodads or subscribing to ever-updating software. They want to run their productivity and database software on a stable platform, and that's it. They will keep their Win2k, XP and Office2k3 licenses until Linux and OpenOffice is able to be swapped in seamlessly (which is pretty much the case now), and get off of MS licensing for good. Since MS will be fighting to hold on to the remaining corporate diehards, they will be reluctant to make the big sweeping changes Apple has been able to, and so won't be able to compete in the consumer space as well. The combination of Apple's rise in the consumer space and Linux's rise in the corporate space will really start to put the hurt on Microsoft in the years to come. They're really caught between a rock and a hard place, and they're squeezing together at an increasing rate. Their attempts to lock down the screws with Windows Genuine Advantage are just going to accelerate this shift.
If Microsoft is to succeed, they will have to become a middleware vendor for other operating systems. If they focus on their vast library of APIs, and work on making them universally available, they would have great leverage, with all the software that depends on these APIs, to secure a large part of the future computer market. This would attract more developers to their platform, and make their platform more crucial to computing in general.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Personally, I'm happy with any computer built since the Difference Engine (Hey, I'm old. Ada Lovelace was hot).
But I also know that the rest of the world ain't like me and you. There are whole groups of professionals who must - by charter - eschew innovation (floor care nurses come to mind) and the less they have to think about computers the more comfortable they are. For me, mouse buttons >= 3 is better. For others, mouse buttons > 0 are problematic, mouse buttons > 1 are Way Beyond The Comfort Zone. There are a lot of those people out there.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Apple is a hardware company, always has been. Selling hardware is their bottom line. What are they going to sell if they dont sell computers and iPods?
What, does Gartner think it's all about lower prices these days? Didn't anyone tell them that in the past 12(?) months:
Hewelett-Packard bought VoodooPC
Dell bought Alienware
Dell also intro'd the XPS series of deluxe gaming PCs
Maybe the big players have realized that there's not much growth potential in selling $300 commodity PCs anymore? They saw the fatter margins in selling deluxe computers and wanted a piece of that pie badly enough to buy some of the better-known names in the business. With that in mind, why on earth would Apple surrender that very business?
And who really believes that Apple will capture a 20% market share simply by being as cheap as, or cheaper than, Dell? iPod is not the price leader in it's field, but so far, it's done okay.
No, you're wrong, Apple does a lot more than just design cases. They design the whole banana. Sure, they use a lot of common components, but not all of the pieces that go into Macs are common components. Find a picture of the new Mac Pro on the inside and that'll tell you just how different their designs are. And that's just the physical design. The OS and the bundled software is part of that design.
Apple designs the complete system, from the ground up. That's why things work together!
And leave off the higher price bullsh**. Price out a Dell with all the same hardware and software components, and Dell has been proven, with the Mac Pro, to be several hundred dollars more expensive. There have been a number of demonstrations, from such non-biased sources as ZDNet and CNet, to prove it.
Comparing Apple and Dell is like comparing Chevy and Mercedes. They're not even in the same class.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Slightly slower? Are you kidding me? This is Slashdot, right?
If a 2 Ghz Celeron is slightly slower than a 2 Ghz Core Duo, then I would say that you have received a defective Core Duo.
The same chip was used inside Sun Ultra 1, 2 and 5 systems, without errors. So what if some PC hardware has the same problem? Either the problem is not in the chip or it is possible to circumvent it because the ultrasparcs using the same chip do not exhibit the same problem.
To my knowledge, the UltraSparc never included that particular revision of the CMD646. BTW, my bad, it was revision 5 of the CMD646, not revision 1 as I stated previously. Regardless, the "high processor load" comment is completely and totally wrong. It is predominantly a problem in master/slave configuration, with only a small number of devices misbehaving in single-drive configurations. I'd be happy to point you to a series of citations for that fact.
Needing active termination (or some wonky substitute thereof) for fast-narrow SCSI is not ahead of its time. It's behind the time, because other computers did not share the same problem.
Yeah, and I'm not sure why that is. I guess other fast-narrow SCSI chips are level triggered instead of edge triggered on the REQ line. It's a really ugly problem, and seeing the description of the problem gives me a good idea of why passive termination can be wonky at times.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Does Dell really sell in 2 weeks what Apple sells in a year?
r p/pressoffice/en/2006/2006_02_16_rr_001?c=us&l=en& s=corp
s .htmls .htmls .htmls .html
FY'06 Revenue (billions):
Dell: 55.91
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/co
Apple: 19.32
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/oct/18result
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jul/19result
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/19result
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18result
All other systems builders have them.
"Apple should get out of hardware" -- of course, because the iMac, Macbook Pro & Mac Pro are such obvious engineering flops. [sarcasm] I suppose the logic is that since many PC manufacturers are trying to mimic Apple's external design sense, that Apple may as well let them carry the torch. Also, given the extreme reliance on Apple hardware & software in the design, entertainment & media industries, I don't ever forsee this happening. I attend an art & design school & the ratio of PCs to Macs on campus is probably something like 1/100.
Y'know, I studied Virgil at school, but I never realised he wrote I Am The Walrus.
the 52nd time's a charm!
This is Slashdot! Everyone one knows that the latest greatest Intel are enhanced copies of the original Pentium. One of these days, Intel will have an original design that's not a 20-year-old copy. :P
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You found the MELT_CPU call? That thing was supposed to be taken out years ago.
( I would insert a reference to following it up with the BSD kernel check to see if the system is on fire, but I can't find the damn thing on Google. Anyone help me? )
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
You can point me to all the citations you want, but I have some of my own.
And further, from the same site:
or
I can no longer find the entry on where it says that it happens mostly when the CPU is peaked out. I can speak from experience, though, that it does not affect only slave drives, because I have run into and solved this problem myself with only a single drive in the system. I went with the FWB Toolkit method, to change the drive to PIO, because it was just a hobby machine and I had no intention of keeping it. A 300MHz G3 is too slow for any practical use except fileserving, the machine does not have enough drive bays to be ueful as a fileserver, and there's no point in a G4 upgrade because the system bus will hamper the performance of the upgraded processor and I'm not paying for something I can only use half of.
And, ultimately, the biggest problem here is that Apple actually deleted the description of the problem from the techinfo library in an apparent attempt to hide the issue from the public - that, in my opinion, is much more serious than the fact that the problem existed in the first place.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Could someone who hasn't swallowed the anti-Israeli commie propaganda line please mod the parent up?
Thanks,
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Come on, Apple doesn't qualify as a hardware manufacturer anymore. They don't even make their own motherboards. I doubt there is even one chip on the new intel macs that Apple is even remotely involved in (okay, except Firewire).
They have figured out a much more profitable business, though, which consists in selling something completely immaterial called "design", and that some people (including me) appreciate so much they'll gladly pay more for a machine that, apart from its looks, is absolutely identical to all others on the market.
In other words: once Jonathan Ive's team has created a new, expensive, shiny wonder, Apple calls up some taiwanese factory to do the manufacturing for them, while slapping in the very same Intel hardware the other companies use. They can then proceed to price it accordingly, then they ???, and then they PROFIT!
Which is exaclty what Steve Jobs had in mind when he came up with original iMac.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
man rsync
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Dell sells many more computer units than Apple, but many of those are of the cheap $300 variety. In revenue, Apple is much closer to Dell, because Apple sells more expensive computers (but the most expensive Macs are actually a lot cheaper than comparable Dells), and also because Apple has this nice little sideline selling MP3 players. In profits, Apple is again closer to Dell, because they have much higher margins than Dell. And the stock market actually values Apple about 20 percent higher than Dell ($65 bn vs. $52 bn at the moment), mostly due to higher margins and higher growth.
I think the revenue numbers may also be a bit painted in favour of Dell: Lets say a pay $1000 for a computer, either from Dell, HP, or Apple. Dell counts it as $1000 revenue. If you bought the HP at PCWorld, and PCWorld paid $800 to HP, then the same computer is only $800 revenue for HP. If you bought a Mac at an Apple Store, things get interesting: Apple counts $800 or whatever has hardware revenue. They have a separate number for their store revenues, and the store made $1000 revenue, but the stores are not counted as part of their $19.32 bn revenue in the last year. So Dell revenues look actually bigger than they are compared to most other companies.
What's funny is a comparison between Apple and Gateway. In units, Gateway sells just slightly more than Apple. In computer hardware revenue, Gateway is tiny compared to Apple. And profits? Gateway makes less than ONE dollar from every computer sold. They might as well not bother.
A more compelling argument is gonna be needed before they jump off that gravy train.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Oswald?
I drank what? -- Socrates
I totally agree. I first used osx a year ago or so and am convinced that is how computing should work for users. It's all of the little things that you mention that put it above a linux or windows desktop. Of course it has it's issues like any piece of software, but it works and works well.
In fact, I'm not sure that linux can ever reach that type of integration or functionality by the very nature of OSS. Not that it's a bad thing, but lack of integration will always relegate linux to server room or the techies desktop.
I agree! Typing "G5" or "G4" to refer, respectively, to the iMac G5 and G4 is far too much work. I propose Apple switch to the Dell engineering naming scheme of iMac Inspiron 2110c. Consumers will definitely understand whether they're buying an iMac Inspiron 2210, 2400a, or 3410+ XPS as opposed to that crummy PowerPC processor suffix and all those model numbers like the G3, G4, and G5. I get the three confused all the time!
"Sufferin' succotash."
Maybe for desktops (I haven't checked), but not for notebooks. Compare the 15.4" MacBook Pro to a customized HP dv6000t:
Hardware
HP: 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, 512 MB RAM, 15.4" widescreen (1280x800), 80 GB 5400 RPM SATA, 8x DL DVD+/-RW, GeForce Go 7400 (256 MB), 3 USB/1 FireWire, 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth, remote control, mic and camera
Apple: 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, 512 MB RAM, 15.4" widescreen (1440x960), 80 GB 5400 RPM SATA, 4x single-layer DVD+/-RW, Mobility Radeon X1600 (128 MB), 2 USB/1 FireWire, 802.11b/g, Bluetooth, remote control, mic and camera
Dimensions
HP: 14.05" x 10.12" x 1-1.5" (wedge shaped), 6.09 lb
Apple: 14.1" x 9.6" x 1", 5.6 lb
Price
HP: $1124
Apple: $1999 (77.8% more expensive)
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I had an Inspiron 8200. It sucked, really bad.
Screws literally fell out if it on their own. At one point, it wouldn't turn on; one month out of the (factory) warranty. I called Dell; they suggested taking it apart (completely) and then putting it back together.
I removed all of the (remaining) screws, separated all the layers, and put it back together.
It worked.
I hated that thing. It was an ugly, poorly made brick, it froze a lot, and was generally underwhelming.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You will note that I did not say it exclusively happened in master/slave mode. What I said was that the majority of problems were the result of master/slave use. IIRC, any drive on the slave side would fail badly (even when reduced to multi-word DMA). By contrast, most drive models worked correctly when they were the only device on the bus, but there were exceptions.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I don't think I phrased my objection to your original post very well. What I objected to was you offering an uneducated, non-nonsensical and even slightly bigoted rant as a superior alternative to customer surveys. Yes, customer surveys are not perfect, but your rant is hardly better founded in reality. Quite the opposite.
I'll certainly agree that there are better options to surveys. How could I possibly object to that?
Also, you tend to have to recompile with the latest version of XCode as major OS revisions are released, or your apps will have stability problems, meaning that you can't just keep using the same binaries for long periods of time.
That's not been the case in my experience. I run several apps that haven't been updated since 10.0 or 10.1 with no trouble. It is true that going the other way can be an issue; often if you build a project on 10.z you'll have to tweak some settings to get it to run on 10.(z-1) or earlier.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The HP weighs more, is half again as thick, and has a lower resolution screen. Trimming weight and thickness from laptops is expensive, and even minor gains carry expensive price tags. Find an HP that's lighter and thinner with a better screen than the Apple, and then see how they compare on cost.
Personally, I'd use OSX if I could get it without buying into Apple's hardware monopoly. Why swap M$'s O/S monopoly for Apple's hardware monopoly?
The OEM support issue is bullshit - linux manages it pretty well without major corporate support. There's no reason why Apple couldn't support a standard set of PC equipment and allow the FOSS community to build drivers for anything else.
"Apple customers buy Apple because they do not want to buy Dell."
Or because they can't run OS X on Dell's hardware.
The point is, the minute apple starts making it possible to run OS X on a beige box, I will be an Apple customer.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
Speak up, Steve can't hear you over the clanging of the cash registers.
Even if thats true ( which i doubt ), so what? Why do you have to *gain* each quarter to stay in a market? What if you are making a ton of money off the sales you are doing now and just keep it at that level? I would say you are still making the same amount of money.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My last two jobs have been at Dell shops. The last job averaged a 31% first-week failure rate on new Dells (mostly Optiplexes). The new place is sitting at 20% failure rate with Dell Precisions, and 20% dead-on-delivery on 24" LCDs. With the amount of tech calls and parts replacements they've had to do, they can't be making much money off of us if this continues.
It's not quite half again as thick (it's 1" thick at the front, sloping up to 1.5" thick at the back), and half a pound is an insignificant weight difference. Try putting two sticks of butter in your laptop case and see if you get tired carrying that extra weight around all day. ;)
Although the HP has a lower resolution screen, it also has a better DVD burner, more video RAM, an additional USB port, and it supports 802.11a. You aren't going to find any two laptops from different manufacturers that are exactly the same, but IMO these are easily close enough to compare.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
In addressing the premise of the recommendation from this particular Gartner analyst, one has to wonder why a company would get out of a highly profitable area of their business while it is still highly profitable. The day may come when selling computers is not a good financial thing for Apple to do, but until that time I am pretty confident Apple will continue doing it.
Of course, many of us also question the prediction for other reasons. First, Apple is not just in the computer hardware business. They sell an overall user experience. The unique design of the hardware and the software are components in that overall experience - each is not easily separable from the other. Second, Apple's current strategy has been extremely effective. They continue to increase market share in each segment they operate in. The line between the iPod and the Mac computer line is continuing to blur without risking the individual segments.
It continues to amaze me that any analyst would be unable to comprehend that Apple's business model is not Dell's. Having not read the analysts actual report (too lazy to download it), I hope that he is only referring to the supply chain and manufacturing efficiencies that Dell is supposed to enjoy over other companies. However, I suspect that Apple is getting as efficient as Dell in these areas. If you look at their component inventory on-hand (at about 4-6 days), they seem to be quite good in their supply chain management. The earlier point that their margins may decrease seems a more salient point than to suggest that Apple would be any less capable of being able to profit from the computer business.
Imagine that...patenting something before it's on the market.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Let's be honest here though, your only concern with anything apple has shipped post-OSX is the iMac RAM cover. Which I'm sorry, but it's pretty damn easy to get off.
... yeah, things have changed a bit. I'm sorry the computer you bought in 1999 doesn't work so well anymore, but perhaps, just perhaps, 8 years later is a time to consider retiring it.
Past performance being what it is, you're effectively saying you don't trust OS X because MacOS 7 crashed on you a lot. Like a lot of people still do. "Oh I used a mac in the late 80s and it sucked"
...though not very many of them.
Apple retains one manufacturing plant in Laguna, CA and another in Cork, Ireland. Both have seen their workforces shrink in recent years.
I believe it may also have a company-owned (that is, not contracted) plant in Malaysia that makes mice.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Speaking of props, what would all the media companies do without Apple hardware? I'm seeing more and more commercials that use Apple laptops as props (with logos removed and Windows XP screens overlaid onto them).
The article totally neglects the fact that this is Apple and they can charge what they want for hardware.
Apple is selling their hardware at 40% profit, and their user base pays that. Dell needs the Intel discount because they made 5% profit according to the Fortune 500 index. (Although their warranties must be kicking their ass.)
This looks like Gartner put a report together and tried to sell it to Dell or Apple (likely both at the same time with a little different spin on each copy) and they didn't buy so they release it for the marketing. I've never heard of them and now I've visited their website (to see what relation they may have with Dell already, didn't find anything but the doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)
Analysts and consultants always know how you should be running whatever your business is, even if they've never actually been in that business before. Jobs is growing the market share and is already stretched on hardware delivery. Apple couldn't support more than a 2-3% increase a year without running into major bottlenecks on hardware delivery which would cause them to lose potential customers.
Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
Considering that for the majority of the population PC has become synonymous with "computer running Windows" - to the point that Apple in their own TV ads uses the terms to mean exactly THAT ("I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC") - I'm not sure how I would consider this effective application.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
"Try putting two sticks of butter in your laptop case and see if you get tired carrying that extra weight around all day. ;)"
Wait until you get a manager that complains that their 4.03 pound HPs or their 3.1 pound Sonys were too heavy. They would have made me clean toilets for a year if I had replaced their laptops with new ones that were a half-pound heavier, no matter what other bells and doodads I put on it.
Personally, I would love to see Apple get out of the hardware business. Not so much because their hardware is unexceptional and expensive, but because it's an ergonomic nightmare... whoever is responsible for the keyboard on my Macbook Pro has a special place reserved in hell being forced to climb flaming rocks while his wrists are flayed to the bone. I'd prefer a Thinkpad and a copy of generic OS X to run on it any day.
Speaking of Thinkpads... they have style. It's stealth-fighter-black industrial-chic style, but it's style nonetheless. They don't make you strip tiny screws and unglue parts of the computer, or pull the case apart with a putty knife. They give you a nice knurled black screw that fits in a recess in the magnesium and matte black plastic case, undo that and pull out the drive caddy. Swap it out, put it back, and the screw looks like a decorative bump on the case
And there's a ridge around the screen to keep dust and debris out when the lid's closed.
And the connectors are all on the back so you don't have the USB connector for your mouse sticking out right where you need to PUT the mouse on an airline lap tray.
And you don't have to sit there and watch the computer for 30 seconds EVERY TIME you close it to make sure it's gone into sleep mode, because it doesn't slowly throb ONE status light to tell you it's asleep... now is that throbbing yet? No, that a reflection off the monitor... oh... no, OK, it's sleep.
And the Thinkpad has the best laptop keyboard on the planet bar none.
Don't compare Apple with Dell, though. That's like praising a Big Mac because it tastes better than dog food. They should be getting Lenovo to do their design.
Wow. I'm flattered really, but what idiots moderated this to +5. Or even to +2? Insightful? Informative?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
And that goes for the iPod too: the click-wheel is a daft idea. Their build quality is better than Dell, but then so is that of any any five year old with a pile of legos.
In that case, they certainly wouldn't like the 5.6 lb MacBook Pro.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It was on TechTV.
I run my business with Macs, and we have like 20 Macs and two PCs. Which is funny since we make PC software (PC dating-sims, if you know what they are). Anyway, cost is always a factor, but really, consider that the cost of a person's SALARY is way, way more than any computer, and considering that we're going to be using each computer for 3-4 years, isn't it logical to assume that good design, reliability, and "it just works" is certainly worth, oh, another $500 or whatever over a PC? Sure, lower cost is important, and I'd love for Apple to make a "Mini Plus" that had a normal sized hard drive and real graphics for $899. But jeez, considering the reliability of a Mac over most PCs, and the fact that we've not had day one of downtime due to viruses, um, I think Apple is doing just fine, at least in our case?
You've got a friend in Japan: http://www.jlist.com
In the 15 years i've been in IT, I have consistently been a white-box/Dell/HP/EMC guy. The current network I admin uses Dell servers and the 3 year old Dell workstations are on their way out. Guess what we are buying to replace the aging workstations? You guessed it - Macs.
The ability to standardize on one platform for both Mac OS and Windows is great. The hardware is nicely designed, and seems to hold up better than Dell or HP.
Still, Dell makes a nice server, and the re-branded EMC stuff is also nice....but who knows...the next Xserves may run Windows....you never know.
Apple's control over its hardware ensures quality. The miracle called Boot Camp will only increase Apple's market share. I hope an MBA doesn't screw that up.
-ted
Why would Apple let their sleek, cheap, fast boxes get converted to ugly, overpriced, average boxes and have their consumers suffer the wrath from Dell for not buying a real Dell?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Andrew Donoghue suggested that Toyota get out of the car business, and just make car stereos.
WTF does this mean???
Apple's machines are generally built by contract PC manufacturers in Asia; Apple already is largely only design, marketing, distribution, and some software development. Involving Dell would only increase costs for Apple.
Maybe it's time Gartner got out of the gratuious advice business? my (admittedly selective) memory tells me the things they say seem to be nutty like this story, or blatently obvious.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
whats wrong with the MacBook Pro wrist rests? i really dont get what your talking about because i have no issues with mine. Connectors on the back would rule out the nicer hinge, and have to divert cooling to the sides and bottom... meaning it would have to sit up higher too, possibly make the whole machine bigger like similiar thinkpads. Also, if the USB plug is in the way on one side, try plugging it into the other side. Ive never had it in the way, even on an airplane tray, because if i put an external mouse so close that the plug is in the way, id be bumping the computer all the time anyways.... but i dont even use a mouse anymoe since the trckpads on these are so wonderful... I wish someone made one like this i could hook up to a desktop, but no one does, just crap ones like on Dells and Thinkpads. Why are you waiting 30 seconds every time you close it to make sure its gone to sleep? Every time i close the lid it goes to sleep. If i have many things going sometimes it takes a little longer than others, but i dont sit and watch it. Every time I've closed the lid and came back later to get on it, it was always alseep. Are you used to things not working, so you have to double check and make sure it does? And "best" is an opinion. i much perfer the keyboard on my MBP to the Thinkpad keyboards.
yes, odd that. However, marketting people are paid to produce stuff people will understand, not live in the [ast.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Tell me you don't think this is true.
Please share with us all any remotely supporting evidence whatsoever. I'm sure we'd love to see it.
At least there won't be a new EBCDIC.
:-)
Didn't you know? The Word Document Format is the new EBCDIC. OpenDoc is the new ASCII...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually Dell uses vendor managed inventory. All the parts are at the factory, but Dell doesn't "own" the parts until they're removed from the truck parked just outside.
... Apple has to have more cash tied up in finished goods inventory as Macs sit at various brick and mortar retailers. Having their own retail stores helps, poorly maintained and poorly promoted Macs are not the only reasons Apple does not miss many former Mac dealers.
That is only half the story, Dell has a major advantage over Apple that goes beyond your point. Since Dell is pretty much on-line only they don't have to offer retailers terms (pay for goods some number of days after receiving it, 30 days, 60 days?). Dell collects customer money right away, before they have to pay Intel for that CPU that just shipped (Dell got it on terms), Seagate for that hard drive,
Sorry junior but you just don't know enough people to matter. The markey share for OSX is less than 5%.
Well Grandpa Simpson, while you sit around swapping civil war stories with guys at the home, the market share for OS X has done sneaked out from under your nose and is now at 6%. If you can't even get that basic fact right, the rest of your argument seems to be even more flimsy.
And that's for overall market. What would happen if you took out all PC's purchased by business and looked at home market share?
That means the vast majority of the people out there don't use it... despite Apple's clever comercials.
You didn't think about seperating out server sales from home sales, did you? You didn't look to look at what computers are coming into colleges and businesses and boardrooms across the land though the users and not the IT departments, did you? All of those are seeing Macs come in, many times where none were before.
But don't worry about having to adapt to the world changing around you, I'm sure your memory will be gone soon enough to the point where you'll never even remember the good old days of Microsoft dominance and what you are missing. We'll all just chuckle a little when you ask where the virus scanner is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you've done actually pricing between a Dell and an Apple feature for feature, the Apple is cheaper.
Apple's Dell v Mac comparison is somewhat bogus, there is some "gold plating" on the Mac side. Apple marketing department aside, a feature by feature comparison is not relevant. Those features have to be tied to actual customer needs to be relevant. If a Dell forgoes features that customers don't really care about and costs less then the Dell is the better value. Sure error correction RAM is nice, but how many users need or want it? Would they have preferred 2G non-ECC to 1G ECC? The quad is a pretty awesome piece of technology but many of us Mac owners are going to pass on it, let the early adopters fill Apple coffers for now, and wait for a future tower configuration that is more desktop and less server. Whether it is limited parts availability or simply the tried and true walking consumers down the demand curve, offering a single high end machine and introducing the middle and moderate models at a later date makes sense. These later machines will be a more appropriate comparison against Dell.
Like their advice or not, I'm certain Gartner knows what a product is.
I would be not so certain Gartner could make better Apple
Servant of karma
The point is, the minute apple starts making it possible to run OS X on a beige box, I will be an Apple customer.
They would just need to make clear statement of what you should put into that box.
Servant of karma
This is precisely why I never listen to such analyst. They are dumb.
The point of Apple is to make hardware ergonomic and user friendly. Software is the glue. But regardless of quality of glue, you cannot force user to stick with shit.
Look at M$ and its relations of OEMs & hardware manufacturers - and resulting quality of Windows, its drivers and integration with hardware. This is precisely what would happen to Apple, would it ever stop being vertical company: crashes & blue screens (since software would never know hardware it runs), incompatibilities & over-delayed releases (since exact way hardware works might be known only few weeks before it's released).
Apple would never do that.
HAHAHA! Morons! Apple survived not single CPU manufacturer/architecture in past, with Intel being third. Apple is outliving CPUs for sure. That's tradition.
What's more, for Intel now Apple is becoming important part. Compared to other HW manufacturers, Apple has very narrow well defined goals it is trying to achieve no matter what. That's something certain for Intel in the uncertain market.
Also, Apple is often early adopter. (I do not know even where to start with what they did first. Plug&Play & USB as two big examples.) And that's again good for Intel, since they can now pilot new technologies on "high end" Apple's hardware, w/o need to wait for other manufacturers who are in their turn wait for Intel to drop prices. Win-win combination: Intel can sell more expensive hardware to people who can appreciate it and Apple can improve its "exclusiveness" rating.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
When a lie is repeated often enough people will take it as fact.
Speak for yourself, buddy. Sure, USB had been out for a couple of years before Apple jumped on the bandwagon - but that is completely irrelevant. At the time, manufacuters in the cut-throat peripheral industry could spend the extra cash to add a USB port to their devices - or just stick with serial and parallel interfaces, available on just about every PC in existance. Guess which one they choose.
Then Apple released the USB only iMac, creating a whole new crop of consumers who would need new periphreals. Manufactuers could now make USB devices compatible with this captive market, and just about every PC made in the last couple years.
Intel invented USB, but Apple is the one who got the ball rolling, and that's a fact.
1394 (firewire when not using Apple's name) was an abandoned technology
Talk about making shit up.
Firewire would have come about without any Apple involvement because digital video needed the technology. Without Sony, however, it wouldn't exist.
Hardly. There was always composite out, and later USB 2.0, although inferior to Firewire.
After seeing all those PC games at Gamestop, we might amend that to say ""Apple makes wonderful machines that work. Dell machines that not only work, but they play also."
In which case, there's something seriously wrong with my MacBook Pro.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Never said they could. I can comprehend text, however, which is more than some commenters here.
It's not really that odd. Since the term PC is no longer generic but in most people's minds represents Windows PCs the best marketing option for Apple it to differniate themselves from that term. Apple doesn't want people to say they make PCs because that would bring the typical negative associations (viruses, spyware, crashing etc.) to their brand. Apple is doing everything it can to associate the term "Mac" with something that is better than "PC". The current ads are simple and reinforce that positive/negative both in audio and visual cues. Oh look the PC is a fat business dork, the Mac is a cool young guy. The Mac guy gets to hang out with hot Japanese chicks, oh look the PC hangs out with an ugly transvestite, the Mac is healthy but the PC get's sick etc. Basic strong symbols.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
these adverts aren't on in the uk, I've found the link to them on the Apple site, I must see what all the fuss is about.
Macs are not looked on kindly in the UK. I know of barely anyone who wants/owns one, and fewer still who are willing to say a good word about it. The only UK person I know who's pashionate about them lives and works in the states.
Curiously I also know many people who suffer constant problems with their wintel boxes, and often these are the same people. I own mainly 'PC's, but with linux (although I am shamefully typing this on a demon spawned Wintel/AOL machine).
I'm getting myself a Mac as a graduation present, and hang the critics. I want build quality.
whats wrong with the MacBook Pro wrist rests?
Wrist rests are irrelevant. Resting your wrists on something when you're typing is one of the things that causes repetitive strain injury, so the presence or absence of "wrist rests" isn't the point.
The problem is with the keyboards on almost every Apple laptop have poor tactile feedback and a flat response, as well as far too short a throw. Combine that with the flat keyboard and keys and you've got a recipe for causing (or in my case agravating) nerve damage.
I literally can not use my Macbook Pro's built-in keyboard intensively for more than a quarter of an hour without intense pain from my little fingers all the way to my shoulderblades. The only other laptop keyboard that I've had that problem with is the tiny toy keyboard on a Toshiba Libretto I used to have.
Connectors on the back would rule out the nicer hinge, and have to divert cooling to the sides and bottom... meaning it would have to sit up higher too, possibly make the whole machine bigger like similiar thinkpads.
The 15" Macbook Pro is larger than my Thinkpad was. It's not as thick, but it's wider and deeper, and it weighs more, and has a lower pixel density - the 14" Thinkpad still has more pixels than the 15" Macbook (1440x900 Every time I've closed the lid and came back later to get on it, it was always alseep.
Until I started checking I was routinely finding my Macbook Pro's battery flat by the time I got home. My boss, who has had three Powerbooks, checks for the light to shut down too. Ironically I never had a problem on my Thinkpad... sleep and hibernation worked perfectly. And while I'm on the subject, the Macbook Pro does not support hibernation in hardware: it's not the OS... I've run FreeBSD (which shares a huge amount of code with OS X) on multiple Wintel laptops and have never had a problem using hardware hibernation there.
"Safe Sleep" is not a substitute for hibernation.
If it were not for the software, there owould be nothing to this laptop that is remotely attractive once you take it out of the store display or photo session and actually start using it. Since it';s the only way to legally run OS X on a laptop, I put up with it... but if I had to pay $500 for a generic copy of OS X I could run on a Thinkpad... even one that cost as much as a Macbook Pro... I'd still consider it the better deal.
[Reposting because the < in "1440x900 < 1400x1050" munched part of the response]
whats wrong with the MacBook Pro wrist rests?
Wrist rests are irrelevant. Resting your wrists on something when you're typing is one of the things that causes repetitive strain injury, so the presence or absence of "wrist rests" isn't the point.
The problem is with the keyboards on almost every Apple laptop have poor tactile feedback and a flat response, as well as far too short a throw. Combine that with the flat keyboard and keys and you've got a recipe for causing (or in my case agravating) nerve damage.
I literally can not use my Macbook Pro's built-in keyboard intensively for more than a quarter of an hour without intense pain from my little fingers all the way to my shoulderblades. The only other laptop keyboard that I've had that problem with is the tiny toy keyboard on a Toshiba Libretto I used to have.
Connectors on the back would rule out the nicer hinge, and have to divert cooling to the sides and bottom... meaning it would have to sit up higher too, possibly make the whole machine bigger like similiar thinkpads.
The 15" Macbook Pro is larger than my Thinkpad was. It's not as thick, but it's wider and deeper, and it weighs more, and has a lower pixel density - the 14" Thinkpad still has more pixels than the 15" Macbook (1440x900 < 1400x1050). Diverting cooling to the sides would allow more efficient flow-through cooling, allowing it to remain cooler and quieter. The extra space would make room for a better keyboard, it would fit better into standard laptop bags and carriers, it would take up less room in my backpack, and the smaller pixels would make for sharper display at normal viewing range for a laptop.
Every time I've closed the lid and came back later to get on it, it was always alseep.
Until I started checking I was routinely finding my Macbook Pro's battery flat by the time I got home. My boss, who has had three Powerbooks, checks for the light to shut down too. Ironically I never had a problem on my Thinkpad... sleep and hibernation worked perfectly. And while I'm on the subject, the Macbook Pro does not support hibernation in hardware: it's not the OS... I've run FreeBSD (which shares a huge amount of code with OS X) on multiple Wintel laptops and have never had a problem using hardware hibernation there.
"Safe Sleep" is not a substitute for hibernation.
If it were not for the software, there owould be nothing to this laptop that is remotely attractive once you take it out of the store display or photo session and actually start using it. Since it';s the only way to legally run OS X on a laptop, I put up with it... but if I had to pay $500 for a generic copy of OS X I could run on a Thinkpad... even one that cost as much as a Macbook Pro... I'd still consider it the better deal.
First, I don't want an iMac. For me, that's a really stupid idea. The upgradability is limited, and the computer is built into the monitor. There pretty much is no PC equivalent to something like that. Also, the Mac Pro doesn't fit my needs. I'm not looking for something that high end. I'm looking to spend around $1000 on a computer. Visiting Apple.ca, I can only find a MacPro which is some dual-dual-core (two dual core chips) that costs $2800. Sorry, no thanks, I don't need that kind of power. I find macs to either buy the uber high end, which isn't priced that bad, but is way beyond my needs, or buy some integrated computer that costs more because you have to buy a new monitor every time you want to upgrade the motherboard. I already have a 19 inch LCD. Why would I want to buy an iMac that requires me to buy another monitor.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I call bullshit on your bullshit, specifically because you dont have the Guts to back up your claims by posating as you.
I personally oversaw the 250 laptops, Corperate wide on COMCAST we had thousands and everyone on the friday morning Tech conference calls all echoed the same problems. Dells simply have a HIGH failure rate. C610 and C640's have motrherboards that will fail, screen backlights that do not last long. D600,D610 have the nasty battery issue but also eat hard drives and their internal power supplies tend to die as well (could be coupled to the battery issue, I dont know as I bailed on corperate life at Comcast 4 months ago.)
Even the flagship D640 I and the techs had failed ALOT. I had 4 hard drive failures in the year I had my machine as well as minipci 802.11 cards dying and ram issues.
So dell fanboi... you give me a large scale exaple of how your dells worked perfectly for 3 years and you did nothing but play WoW at work as nothing ever went wrong.....
Dell pushes hard the warrenties... because they know the stuff fails. Comcast bought everything with platinum level warrenty coverage because we knew the stuff was crap but TCO was lower to have 5-10 spares in each region and call out dell weekly to fix their junk.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Quite honestly; see my URL for details. I've got a Powerbook and an Ubuntu desktop, and it's taking all of my willpower to not switch to Ubuntu right now.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
I like the OS very well, but the reason I switched away from the windows/generic pc world is because I wanted better quality and better design.
There is no PC manufacturer that matches the level of quality apple produces. Their systems are just designed well, built well, and supported well.
I don't mind paying a premium for well built stuff!
You are open to be surprised even by extent of this more. ;-)
I'd say Apple practices such phenomenal approach to product in context of overall state of this industry for today, that any average think-tank is easy to be mislead by own cooking on averages of industry. My guess is, Gartner does not get this product, which is quite relevant, discussing this article.
Servant of karma
But seriously, the classic profile of the mac user is that they don't know how to use any other computer and are afraid to learn.
Every Mac user I know is intimately familiar with Windows; a couple of them are even MSCEs. For my own part, I make my living writing Windows software.
It's BECAUSE we know Windows so well that we choose Macs.
If there's anybody "afraid to learn" a new system, it's typically Windows users. My father, for example. He has weekly nightmares with his Windows box (for which he must call me for support), and he's fully aware that my life is much easier because I use Macs. Yet no force in the universe will get him to change. He's convinced that it would be too hard to change to a new OS, no matter how miserable he is with the one he's got.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"Gartner does not get this product, which is quite relevant, discussing this article."
Gartner doesn't get the mac? You think it's some obscure computer that they haven't figured out yet? Just because you, and the original poster, believe that Gartner is wrong does not mean that they don't understand the product or even what "a product is".
I'll remind you of the what the original poster said:
"Steve doesn't need business advice from "pundits" that don't seem to understand what a product is."
You can see that your comment is not relevent to the discussion, as the discussion is about the sweeping generalization that was made, NOT about Gartner and whether they "get" the mac.
Just because someone or some company may not be right
FWIW, the MacBooks do support 802.11a. I think all macintels do in fact (comes with the Intel chipsets)
This is a new phenomenon. It's only recently that these people have bought macs, due to OSX. And I maintain that most of them are still not all that familiar with windows. You must not know very many mac users. I know tons and most of them use macs because they can't figure out windows. A lot of them are confused by too many buttons, and I am not making this up. I'm sorry that's become such an old and tired joke but to those of us who did not drink the apple kool-aid or eat the apple pudding, it's still funny because it's still true.
Windows users are afraid to switch because they are afraid they won't be able to find their favorite software. For the most part, they're right.
Now, I do think that OSX is superior to Windows in most ways, but the user interface isn't one of them, and I don't think it's all that superior to be frank.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You think it's some obscure computer that they haven't figured out yet?
Yep! It is phenomenon, engineering, creative approach thing, that did not happen before in exact context, it is still being CREATED right now. It happens right now, tomorrow, cannot yet be analysed, because it didn't happen yet. Open for opportunities, throw yours into, y'know!
And, heck, it belongs right to comics corner: Apple EVENTUALLY seeking channels of Dell because of (good!) Intel processor (or what?). Why both of you are talking nonsense? I knew Dell a little, ir was (and remains) miles away from Apple stuff. I don't believe this kind of joking even belongs in the forecoming season of helloween? Why do I have to insult you? I do not want it at all. Let's stop here, please.
Servant of karma
"Yep! It is phenomenon, engineering, creative approach thing, that did not happen before in exact context..."
Really? The mac is over two decades old. It is plodding along; becoming less differentiated all the time.
"it is still being CREATED right now. It happens right now, tomorrow, cannot yet be analysed, because it didn't happen yet. Open for opportunities, throw yours into, y'know!"
Woohoo! Just like everything else.
"Apple EVENTUALLY seeking channels of Dell because of (good!) Intel processor (or what?)."
This was never claimed by anyone. Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
"Why both of you are talking nonsense?"
What nonsense am I talking? That Gartner DOES know what a product is? I've never defended their position but I do take offense to idiotic comments. Interesting to see you jump in a take it up a notch.
"I knew Dell a little, ir was (and remains) miles away from Apple stuff."
You are free to judge as you like, but Dell's product quality was never part of the discussion. If you want to have that argument, take it somewhere else.
"Why do I have to insult you? I do not want it at all. Let's stop here, please."
You are free to stop, but please learn to read. No need to continue proving yourself a fool.
Where the hell does Gartner get off telling Apple how to run their business? Back in the last century, when the word still had meaning, this behavior would be called "rude". Apple belongs to Apple, and is Apple's responsibility. It is none of Gartner's business. If they want it to be their business, then they need to start buying a bunch of Apple stock. Otherwise they can shut their piehole.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Everything I need to know I learned on Slashdot #101: "Don't dis Apple's hardware". That's an even bigger no-no than "Don't defend Microsoft".
Somehow features that would get any other company nailed on Slashdot are seen as virtues when Apple puts them in their computers. But I'm not going to dis them any further in this message.
I'll just say that Apple badly needs to get some help from some company that builds hardware that has to sell on how well it works... not on the software, on the name, or on style. Not Dell, for God's sake... if there is a worse choice that's still in business I don't know it... but they teamed up with IBM Japan once before and produced one of the best-designed Powerbooks ever. I'm sure they could get Lenovo to give them a hand.
Really? The mac is over two decades old. It is plodding along; becoming less differentiated all the time.
Just like other players in personal computing, some just not in the same healthy shape anymore, right? What company in this industry is capable making periodic announcements, that DO resonate, because still can proudly show innovation? After all those decades it is not so easy, and demanded attitude all along (which even Apple could have been missing by now). FYI: I am 20 years in this field, started with DEC machines and teaching children system programming on Apple II, so you would be more informed what is appropriate to allow yourself.
Woohoo! Just like everything else.
Eeeeexactly! You either are starting to get it or just allowing yourself to better move away whistling? Either is good enough.
It IS about sparks in the product, and keeping it and bringing all along EXCLUSIVELY, not about dull recommendation to use some mechanics, that brave "analysts" found possible. Nonsense. They DO NOT GET APPLE PRODUCT. They got their recommendation of no value, that's what they got themselves.
And all this, while typing it on a quality PC notebook, what a misery - or could I be blamed applehead even so? You know better.
>> "Apple EVENTUALLY seeking channels of Dell because of (good!) Intel processor (or what?)."
This was never claimed by anyone. Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
"surprisingly ambitious report" - read this yourself.
"Gartner says Apple should concentrate on what it does best -- create software -- and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure" - and this.
"Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues" - this, too
What have you been reading before? Only that sentence of yours, that Gartner knows what product is? Have you seen in the same comments - people are laughing at the clues this tank spews. This is NOT analysis of any worthy level.
And the remainder deserves returning back to you:
What nonsense am I talking? That Gartner DOES know what a product is? I've never defended their position but I do take offense to idiotic comments.
You are free to stop, but please learn to read. No need to continue proving yourself a fool.
Servant of karma
I'm ignoring all your attempts to change the subject. The argument at hand is whether Gartner "knows what a product is". The claim is that they don't since their advice in the aricle rubbed the original poster the wrong way.
"They DO NOT GET APPLE PRODUCT. They got their recommendation of no value, that's what they got themselves."
Finally, something relevant (though meaningless). Now, prove that, whatever it is you're trying to say.
"Gartner says Apple should concentrate on what it does best -- create software -- and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure"
Which is not to say that Apple should make its software run on generic PCs from Dell. They could partner with Dell to provide machines that were certified to run OS X and even sell them through the Apple store. Gartner only said that they believed Dell could offer Apple a lower cost structure that would make Apple more competitive. Perhaps you should think harder.
"Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues"
That was totally unsubstantiated by the article. The suggestion is that Intel is losing money on Apple sales but I don't believe it. Nevertheless, that is the basis for the article and only Apple and Intel know the truth about it.
"Have you seen in the same comments - people are laughing at the clues this tank spews. This is NOT analysis of any worthy level."
Yes I have and now I see. You believe that, since you disagree with Gartner, they must know nothing about product. You are as big an idiot as the original poster then, and a far poorer communicator as well. Too bad your 20 years experience have taught you nothing.
"And the remainder deserves returning back to you:"
Tnank you for another content-free, inscrutable reply. It's clear that you're an Apple fan. Too bad you can't read commentary for what it is.
This is last one, because more just does not make sense, even if you find some satisfaction, in what you manage to produce.
Which is not to say that Apple should make its software run on generic PCs from Dell. They could partner with Dell to provide machines that were certified to run OS X and even sell them through the Apple store. Gartner only said that they believed Dell could offer Apple a lower cost structure that would make Apple more competitive. Perhaps you should think harder.
Which is further nonsense, as Apple is not competing in PC market, as Dell does, you see. It competes on UNIQUE PRODUCTS, that create their own markets (OK, partially, but I want to underscore importance of DIFFERENCE IN VERY METHOD) because of innovative qualities. And, as a consequence, Apple DOES NOT CARE about cost structure in same terms, Dell is forced to (and succeeded for a while with now very questioned future). And Apple SHOULD NOT sacrifice those comfortable margins, they have now, should not sacrifice that METHOD of doing stuff. Which would be the case, if they dump hardware part. They have one of best OS instances right now, but customer is seduced NOT BY THAT. What software iPod runs, do you even KNOW, and you are geek, you must suppose. Shallow one.
Meanwhile, manufacturing of iPod IS successfully outsourced. Though you are not supposed to know any other brand behind that - that's not your business. There is no place for TWO brands, at least not now, under current IDEA. Dell could help almost any PC company, Dell is incapable helping Apple along Gartner proposal - that's it. And Apple is well on the tide right now, in much different position, than companies, that started from dismantling themselves, as a way of survival. Which helped them way shorter, than they expected.
>>"Have you seen in the same comments - people are laughing at the clues this tank spews. This is NOT analysis of any worthy level."
You believe that, since you disagree with Gartner, they must know nothing about product.
They do not get at all current IDEA of THAT PARTICULAR company, which is centered around very specific mindset of very particular persons (and that leaving aside mindset and character of employees and expanding base of fans = customers). Those at Gartner, obviously, counted only some average industry mechanics, but NOT ESSENTIALS.
You are as big an idiot as the original poster then, and a far poorer communicator as well.
Not me, boy - it will be first time, I'll allow myself naming YOU an idiot. But by now at least I know for certain, you deserved it.
Too bad your 20 years experience have taught you nothing.
Another nonsense - it just does not work that way. Even if it seems to you so, or you wish it was so - things just are as they should be, regardless of your abilities in that particular case.
Servant of karma
This is a new phenomenon. It's only recently that these people have bought macs, due to OSX.
Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Most of my Mac-using friends and contacts, including myself, were System 7 users back in the day. In college in the early 90s, few people knew Windows inside-out half as well as the Mac geeks I rolled with.
You must not know very many mac users.
Only a couple hundred. Not enough of a sample for you?
A lot of them are confused by too many buttons, and I am not making this up.
Maybe things are different outside of Minnesota, but in my experience there are two major groups of Mac users: 1. Creative work geeks, 2. Computer science geeks. (As a professional programmer and semi-pro musician, I fit in both groups.) In all cases, mac users deal with Windows on an extremely regular basis. For example, printing professionals like to use Macs, but not all of their customers do. To survive in business, they need to MASTER both systems. Having done so, they almost invariable choose Macs for themselves.
Windows users, on the other hand, are made up by: 1. Gamers, 2. People who have a system chosen for them by their employer, 3. People who only really know Windows and fear change. There's a lot of overlap in groups 2 and 3.
Now, I do think that OSX is superior to Windows in most ways, but the user interface isn't one of them...
Spoken like a Windows geek who doesn't want to let go of his blankie.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Does it have digital video out? Optical audio out? Does it react to the ambient light? Is the keyboard backlit? Will the power cord detach if someone trips on it? If I plug in a monitor will it create a large desktop combining the external monitor and its own?
I honestly don't know the answer to those questions. If it does all that, and the screen is of equal quality, then I'd say it's a tremendous bargain.
No to all but the last question (no optical audio out, but it does have 1/8" SPDIF out). Combining two monitors to make one large desktop is a standard feature of Windows.
Now the question is, are those bells and whistles really worth an extra $850? To me, they definitely aren't.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Only if conditions are right. Are they in this case? I don't know for sure, but I am skeptical.
Now the question is, are those bells and whistles really worth an extra $850? To me, they definitely aren't.
That's a different argument. You can't have it both ways. Also, I was not able to duplicate that price. It was a couple of hundred dollars higher, and didn't include, for instance, software for burning dvds (it was an extra add on.) And i just bought the very Mac in question, and I paid $100 less than that price. And there's a lot more software than that that isn't on the HP. Again, you can't say "those aren't important to me" while at the same time using the price to demonstrate how much cheaper it is. And the are of course other advantages to the Mac that are more difficult to quantify.
And when I'm ready to sell it, it will still be worth more than the current price of that new HP.
I'm not sure which conditions you're referring to. What makes you think this wouldn't work?
I suppose some chipsets might force the VGA output to show the same as the flat panel, and only allow an extended desktop on the TV output, but I wouldn't expect the GeForce Go to be one of them, and according to this, it isn't.
It's not "having it both ways" if the other differences are unimportant. Consider a cheap sedan that costs $15,000, and an expensive luxury model that's exactly the same, except it has heated seats and costs twice as much. Heated seats are unavailable on the cheaper model. Is it impossible to compare the two cars? No; you can note that they're mostly identical except for one feature, then decide whether you're willing to pay an extra $15k for that feature. If you don't care about heated seats at all, then you can ignore the seats and compare the cars directly on price, and the smart choice is obvious.
Of course you can. No two laptops are going to be exactly the same; by your logic, then, it wouldn't make sense to compare any two laptops on price. At some point you have to accept the differences and decide how much they're worth to you.
To me, the handful of features only available on the MacBook are worth a lot less than the faster DVD burner on the HP, and I'm saying that as someone who has a Powerbook G4 with most of them (and has seen first hand the damage that a non-magnetic power connector can cause). Someone who thinks they're more important would be wise to take my advice with a grain of salt, but I doubt many of those people would be comparing laptops by price anyway.
You could say the same about Windows.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
... and ordered a study from Gartner that they hoped would influence Apple to let it happen?
worries me.
.)
iNTEL's showcase stuff has generally been headed the wrong direction. Look at USB vs Firewire.
(As far as I am concerned, USB basically makes a mediocre replacement for the floppy disk, and that's about
And look at iNTEL's UWB and the not-invented-here attitude they've shown. They want UWB they can control the IP for, even if it doesn't do the job.
"This is last one, because more just does not make sense, even if you find some satisfaction, in what you manage to produce."
What a shame. It so enjoyable trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Too bad you don't make a similar effort.
"Which is further nonsense, as Apple is not competing in PC market, as Dell does, you see."
No, you don't see. Apple doesn't have to license OS X to Dell to run on Dell's generic PCs. The suggestion was to leverage Dell, not use Dell's existing products. Apple could lock OS X to specific Dell machines just as it does today. Once you realize that, even though you never will, you'll realize the rest of your rant is absurdly meanlingless.
"What software iPod runs, do you even KNOW, and you are geek, you must suppose. Shallow one."
Another spurious brain fart. What are you trying to say?
"There is no place for TWO brands, at least not now, under current IDEA."
How the hell do you know?
"Dell is incapable helping Apple along Gartner proposal - that's it."
State your opinion as though it's fact then. You are free to believe whatever you like, but just because you disagree with Gartner doesn't mean that they know nothing.
"They do not get at all current IDEA of THAT PARTICULAR company..."
You seem to be convinced of that even though you don't know the ideas of that particular company, you have totally failed to grasp what Gartner has said, and you demonstrated time and again a total lack of reading comprehension.
"Not me, boy - it will be first time, I'll allow myself naming YOU an idiot. But by now at least I know for certain, you deserved it."
I doubt you even know what an idiot is. Perhaps when you start looking up words in the dictionary you can start with that one.
"Even if it seems to you so, or you wish it was so..."
It's clear that it is so and I don't need to wish it to be. All I wish is that you continue to spew your random nonsense so that I may thrash you some more.
Now, prove to me again why Gartner doesn't know what a product is because their opinion, which you've demonstrated you completely fail to understand, doesn't agree with your own. Please? Try not to look so much like an idiot this time.
Were you involved in development of these peripherals at this time? I was, and I watched these USB devices get tested every day for more than a year before the iMac even existed. One of my best friends was dedicated to it. There were interoperability plugfests occurring regularly. Just exactly what do you think was being tested if none of these peripheral makers weren't bothering? How did the iMac even boot if there weren't USB devices available for Apple to use well prior to announcement?
Yawn. Notice you say "tested" and not "shipped". If you had another best friend who was in marketing at the time, why don't you call him up and see if he still has some Powerpoint presentations on the market penetration of the number of machines with USB vs the number with parallel and serial ports, and the projected migration rate from Windows 3.1 and 95 to Windows 98. Then ask him just how cutthroat the perphreals industry is, and how interested they were in cutting costs. And how many manufacturers waited and went with USB 2.0 instead of the superior Firewire because of the 25 cents per device licensing fee.
No one has claimed that Apple invented USB, or that there weren't any USB devices around before the release of the iMac. But without it, migration to USB would have proceeded at the same glacial pace as before, as the percentage of computers with USB ports went up and the percentage of people still using Windows 95 went down, since manufacturers could count on the vast majority of PC's having parallel and serial ports.
Are you that great a fool?
I suppose it could seem that way, to a complete fucking idiot. Apple didn't invent USB, but they certianally got the ball rolling by creating a captive market that would need new USB devices. Deal with it.
Sorry I didn't see your post till today, I've been busy.
You miss my point on the car/computer analogy, and I think, deliberately. Yeah, you can fix yer Chevy cheaper. Any item you buy for as much more as you pay for a Mercedes is gonna cost more to fix - so what? People that buy them EXPECT that, it's no surprise. They don't buy it cause it's cheaper, they buy it because it's better made, more reliable, and gives you a better ride, and (tada!) "user experience"! Inside is more comfortable, better laid out, etc., etc. Yeah, with that particular car there are some folks that buy it because of the cache, but when I was in Germany (in the Army years ago) I knew a LOT of GI's that took advantage of living there to buy one cheaper than they could in the US. And you can bet they didn't do it because of the cache, they bought the lower cost models available there, because they are better made cars. As with any higher priced commodity, you'll find that kinda mix of motives.
This is the same thing that drive a lot of people to buy Macs. It is the entire user experience. It is the way the OS is designed, the way that the computer is designed. The way things work together, and just feel good. I have been in the desktop support field for ten years, and use and fix a lot of PCs every day. I go home and do my own work on Macs. Why? Because they're better computers. Period, end of story. You can offer all the excuses you want, but in my professional opinion, they are better made, and typical users experience less trouble and fewer problems with the OS.
And scoff if you wish, but I didn't lie, there have been many comparisons between Dell and Mac since the Mac Pro came out, and when comparing computers equipped exactly the same, Dell really does come out higher. Yeah, you can cut and paste whatever you wish to cut the price. But I'm not gonna get into a blow-by-blow price war here. I've seen others do it, so I know it can be done. You can believe it or not, I don't care. I am tired of arguing with PC apologists that refuse to listen to reasonable arguments, as well as facts that have been publicly posted where they can be easily found. The old myth that Apples are more expensive across the board is busted, whether you like it or not.
Apple increased their market share by an amazing 1.3 percent (of absolute share, not percentage increase - from 4.8 to 6.1%) in just a single quarter. That is not just an increase of units sold - that represents NEW customers. People that are buying macs that owned PCs before. Half of customers that bought computers at the Apple stores were switchers. Market analysts from an amazing number of publications that have a history of either non-bias or being PC centric have come out in the last couple of weeks, some before the market share increase was published, going on the record that they feel that Apple is doing the right thing, and is on its way up. The next two sellers on the list, Gateway and Dell, both sold a lot more in sheer numbers, but Gateway LOST money last quarter, and Dell made less profit than Apple with more than twice the number of units sold. They are the only computer maker that has had a solid record of rising sales and profits since 2001.
You can argue the details till (and long past) the cows come home. But the term "not in the same class" doesn't usually just mean price, and you are as aware of that as I am, you just want to argue. I am finished arguing, my points have been adequately made and repeated. If you are not able or willing to look at the issue with an open mind and do your own FAIR examination looking at the new Apple products and the company for real indicators that their star is rising in this market - well, I can't change your mind. But your negative opinion won't change what's happening in the market. Watch it and see.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
I don't want to play the Geekier than thou game but I have used more different systems as my primary computer than most people have ever touched, let alone logged into. I have tons of experience with different operating systems and I have an OSX system right here on my desk and it's pissing me off daily.
Windows gets the interface right in so many ways it's ridiculous. They ought to have it right by now, since they've had so much time to work on it - in fact Windows' basic interface even predates Motif, since Microsoft was on the original Motif WG and helped steer it. This, presumably, is why there's practically no difference between the old Windows 3.1 interface, and Motif (Except Motif has more beveling.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe for desktops (I haven't checked), but not for notebooks. Compare the 15.4" MacBook Pro to a customized HP dv6000t
Let me try this again. On average, for the numbers compiled thus far this year, macs are about 5% cheaper than the average, comparable PC hardware. One given machine from one other company at one particular time does not constitute an average for the industry. I'm not going to bother looking at your example to see if it is valid because, frankly, that is beside the point. There are a number of professionally conducted, independent surveys that determine this every year. So far the consensus is that Apple's are slightly cheaper than average, despite the margins on some of them. Now maybe that is mostly because of the mac mini, or maybe it is not. That is not the point. The point is, in general, macs are not more expensive than PCs.
What a useless comparison! Most Mac models, as far as I can tell, are more expensive than comparable PCs when compared one-by-one. If one model is throwing off the average, that's great news for people who want to buy that particular model, but for everyone else, it's just a meaningless statistic.
You might as well quote the average per capita net worth of a room containing Bill Gates and a thousand penniless bums. "The average net worth of these men is $24.5 million" is technically true, but there are virtually no situations where that fact could help you make a decision. All your statistic really means is that if you bought one of each model of Mac (or is it several of each in proportion to their sales volume?), you'd spend less than if you bought one of each equivalent model of PC.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What a useless comparison!
Comparisons are useful if you want to buy a machine for a particular purpose. In that case, you know what you need better than anyone else so you should do your own comparison. Some people call this "shopping." In general, Apple machines will suffer in such comparisons, not because they are more expensive, but because their are fewer choices, thus you are more likely to end up paying for features you don't want to get ones you do. That, however, is completely different from the incorrect assertion that "macs are more expensive" which is what I was addressing.
there are virtually no situations where that fact could help you make a decision. All your statistic really means is that if you bought one of each model of Mac (or is it several of each in proportion to their sales volume?), you'd spend less than if you bought one of each equivalent model of PC.
Look there are two types of comparisons. You can compare a full set, assuming all features are useful, across a variety of setups. This gives you an objective comparison that is good for making general statements, but not particularly useful to someone looking to acquire a machine for a purpose. Or, you can define a set of tasks you need to do and then find the system that best fits those needs at the best price. This is useful for the individual, but no one does those comparisons on Slashdot because it takes forever to actually define all those criteria in advance and such a comparison is not useful to anyone looking for a different set of tasks. It also does not in any way speak to a general trend as it is a single data point.
"Macs are more expensive than PCs," is a statement about the first kind of comparison and it is factually incorrect.
No, it's just a vague statement, because it doesn't specify which Macs are being compared to which PCs. You have to fill in the gaps for it to have any measurable meaning at all, and depending on how you do that, it can be true or false:
1. [All] Macs are more expensive than [all] PCs. False.
2. [Some] Macs are more expensive than [some] PCs. True, but useless.
3. Macs [on average] are more expensive than [the equivalent] PCs. False, but also useless unless you're buying one of each model, or you're buying the one model that brings down the average price (which happens to be the model without a monitor, keyboard, etc.).
4. [Most] Macs are more expensive than [the equivalent] PCs. True, and useful. I contend that this is the most logical interpretation of the vague statement: if a person is interested in a random Mac model, it's more likely than not that he could find an equivalent PC at a lower price.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
That would've been "printer on fire". Here ya go: http://www.eeggs.com/items/1037.html
The very fact that you hold up the UI similarities between Win 3.1 and Motif as an example of Microsoft's history of "getting it right" tells me everything I need to know about your evaluation of OS front-ends. Cheers.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.