Apple store is down... -> PowerMac G5 Single 1.8 GHz

Actually, that time wasn't so bad. You basically had the same grid with more options. You still had 'pro' machines (9x00, 8x00, 7x00) and the Performa line, which basically was what eMacs and iMacs are now. Sure, you don't really need the choice between 9x, 8x and 7x cases, but the motherboards were basically the same, anyway. Sure, there were too many, and it _was_ a bad time for Apple back then, but it wasn't all down to 'too many models'.

I think _this_ new PowerMac 1.8 is one model too much in the PowerMac range. I don't think the need for this machine was there before its release. However, I _do_ see the need for an even cheaper PowerMac. But I've said that before and kinda understand why Apple doesn't want to do it. It's just... I'm pretty sure Apple could do quite a decent desktop mini tower (doesn't have to be as small as a Cube) for 1000. And it would sell a _lot_ of those...
 
Pengu said:
Hang on. headless emac? so you want minimal expansion, (2 x DIMM slots, one hdd, one optical bay) a "consumer" featureset (no digital audio, no firewire800, no gigabit ethernet, embedded low-end video "card")
Click to expand...

Not to mention, at its heart, a system that does a pretty darned good job of running Office, iPhoto, Mail, Mozilla/Safari, and, well, OS X.

tell me why again?
Click to expand...

...Because they'd sell like **hotcakes**. Users can get onto Mac for $500? There's no way Apple would be able to keep up with demand.
 
Well, right, the downfall was due to Gil Amelio's mismanagement, and only one of the bad things that came out of that was a convoluted product line with no direction. For techies like us, the difference in motherboards and FSBs and processors was easy to comprehend, but that held Apple out and away from the grasp of most home users, who just want a fast, decent, reliable computer. They didn't want to navigate the matrix of product lines and model numbers and what-not and Apple became, pretty much, a "business-only" computer company.

Jobs corrected that by slimming down the product line into categories that are easily understandable to anybody who's ever been on the internet. The model names are easy to understand and closely reflect the performance of the computer (iMac G3, iMac G4, iMac G5 -- people understand than increasing numbers mean more performance). He also got rid of the nonsense naming convention that many companies cling to today (what Is the difference between a 5200 and 5260? And when did those computers deserve a model number in the thousands? Were there 4,999 models before that?!).

At any rate, the machines weren't any better or worse than they are today (well, a little worse, and some really bad), but it's much more easy to understand now, and more accessible to home users, which has enabled Apple to get Macintosh computers into their hands.

I think the addition of a single 1.8GHz machine is great! I was a little shocked at the prices that Apple posted when they revised the line to all dual processors... I would have thought that they'd at least offer a $1799 or $1899 machine like in the past, but for a while, the cheapest was $2000. The 1.8GHz single is perfect for me, and would be the G5 that I purchase. I don't need out-and-out power blasting in my face -- just a good, fast processor to get me along fine.

It just goes to show that one man's trash is another's treasure... I think Apple's got a good lineup, and the addition of the single 1.8GHz machine fills a gap for people that don't need the best or want a pro machine for less than $2000.
 
Ripcord. you're missing something. what you want exists. it's called an emac. the pure lack of ability to add some dime-a-dozen crappy monitor to me is not reason for Apple to introduce ANOTHER product. they don't sell $500 computers. they sell computers that JUST WORK, and have features you pay a premium for. if you want a cheap "headless" mac, by a late-model g4 powermac.
 
they don't sell $500 computers. they sell computers that JUST WORK, and have features you pay a premium for.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but $500 *is* a premium anymore.

Fine, then charge $550 or even $600. Even then you'll see systems fly off the shelves.

People just don't seem to understand that Apple's niche cannot last forever. 1&1/2% market share just isn't going to cut it - we're going to see more Adobe Framemakers dropped, and as we do, the Mac platform dies.

Apple *must* do something aggressive to try to grow market share.
 
I hate to say it, but $500 *is* a premium anymore.
Click to expand...

Um. that doesn't make sense.

And I don't know what sort of crazy world you lot are living in over there.. but $500 is less than the cost of the 6800.. so in australian comparison that's gonna be <$A1000.

That is by no means a premium. if you think THAT is a premium then god forbid what a 2.5ghz model is to you... ungodly?
 
Ripcord, I don't think so. Apple has proven for a long time that they can 'struggle along' with a low market share very well. Because that 'market share' just isn't true. 1-2%? Not in the graphics industry. And Adobe doesn't care much about the Mac's market share in computer games. They look at the numbers of licenses sold to Macs. And whether it makes sense to them to continue development of each software title. Take a look at how long it dragged PageMaker along. FrameMaker, probably, just didn't sell a lot of copies on the Mac anymore. The Adobe CS suite, however, is selling well on the Mac side, I hear. Numbers of Windows side sales don't even matter much, unless they're dwarfing Mac side sales, which they aren't.

I understand that Apple doesn't want to enter the 500$ computer range. However, I _don't_ understand why PowerBooks are decently priced whereas PowerMacs aren't. If a 'switcher' is looking for an Apple _laptop_, he or she has a very nice range to choose from. The distinction between lowend and highend isn't very big either. Just go with your budget. But for a switcher who already has a decent display, there's only PowerMacs, and the cheapest starts at 1500$, which is a bit high. I just wish that Apple would have a compelling range on the desktop side, just like on the notebook side. The AIOs are great, I think. The iMac's a very nice machine. But only for those who _want_ AIOs.
 
Ripcord said:
Apple *must* do something aggressive to try to grow market share.
Click to expand...

This is good logic, but Apple has stated that their main goal is not to grow market share. Apple said that they don't see a way they could make money off of a cheap-o Mac box, and I agree. If their goal was to sell a billion units, releasing a dirt-cheap box would be the way to go -- but that's not their main intention -- their main intention is to make money and produce high quality computers.

Like Fryke said, people have been predicting the demise of Apple for lack of market share for quite some time now -- and Apple continually surprises them by LOSING market share and continuing to be a profit-generating company with no debt.
 
Apple may be losing "market share", but that is because their computers are used for a longer interval of time than PCs, because their quality is better, and they are not outdated so quickly. Businesses cycle through computers relatively quickly, hence the high volume of Wintel machines being sold per quarter. However, Apple's install base has not been decreasing. It is very stable, and if I remember correctly has even grown a bit.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Apple's got it right with the division it's got now: Cosumer vs. Pro, and laptop vs. desktop underneath those two. And the eMac. Apple typically offers far less distinct lines of computers than other companies: take a trip over to Dell.com and get lost in their confusion for a while, then come back to Apple.com and enjoy the serenity that is K.I.S.S.!
Click to expand...
Dell is in the same situation with their desktops. There are no significant differences from one system to another and in many cases the price may only be $100 dollars apart. On the Mac however, the cost difference is greater yet with much of the same basic components throughout.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said: "... then come back to Apple.com and enjoy the serenity that is K.I.S.S.!"

Sure, but when I want to K.I.S.S. and tell the Apple Store to configure me a cheap, headless desktop Mac, the AppleStore goes "Duh!", which isn't exactly helpful.
 
Right -- what the hell is the difference between an Opteron and a Dimension? And what's with the "XL" and "XS" lines of computers? Is one better than the other? I assure you, I could configure an Opteron that would stomp a Dimension, and vice-versa as well. While I can configure an iMac that's got more beef than a G5 tower, the overlap is VERY small, and I doubt you could configure an iMac that would stomp the G5 tower.

Apple makes choosing the right computer SO much easier.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Apple makes choosing the right computer SO much easier.
Click to expand...
Easier perhaps, but the distinction between models is more apparent in cost and not so much in added features. The consumer line more than the pro line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top