Megahertz Myth...

Originally posted by kendall
hulkaros, can't you just accept that someone might have a different opinion than you and its not necessary to analyze and justify someone else's perception of the truth?

...In the end of previous post I agreed that even with a very old Mac one doesn't need to upgrade in anything else... So, no problem there with anyone else's opinion or perception...

But I really wanted a more clever way of REALIZE the truth about speed from a smart person like YOU people...

If you want to understand the difference of speed between Macs don't browse... instead iMovie, iPhoto, etc. or even multitask between them! Then come and tell me or people of this forum (without telling lies) that there is no speed difference between a G3/800, G4/1GHz and Dual G4s or a speed to justify upgrades from old G3s and G4s... Or you know what? Run that Jedi Knight 2 Demo or Return to Castle Wolfnstein Demo with full details to those same Macs I mentioned before and let us know if you see difference in speed area...

As for eMacs and iMacs I think that Apple made it clear that they are about the same in speed areas... At least made it clear to people who are Thinking Different and not just thinking...

Anyways, I think that Apple didn't tell anyone to upgrade to a new Mac just to browse faster... That's Intel with P3s and P4s!!! Apple said connect easier and faster with a Mac... They never said browse faster with a Mac! :D
 
you're missing the point hulk. i'm just looking at a quick comparison of the mac line and that's what i saw. it's the same task in all cases. in fact one so small, that i shouldn't have seen the powermac be the worst performer. it should have done it in it's sleep. i mean, i suppose it could be due to ie, i think that is possible. but it sure seems like it should have been the fastest without question. and if it is, and the guys in the store let it get screwed up somehow, what's that say about the emphasis (or lack of) that apple is putting on the high end right now?

take a deep breath here hulk and think. i'm not comparing macs to pc's, i'm comparing macs to macs. it's not a matter of loving them or not. it's a matter of what i saw.
and you surely could be right about more intensive apps showing the diffs better. i don't know.
 
You all are missing the point. it's all about workflow. Workflow on a mac is much faster than on a Pc. I work with both of them with similar apps. Workflow is what has been and always will be the point of the Apple experience.
 
Originally posted by edX
you're missing the point hulk. i'm just looking at a quick comparison of the mac line and that's what i saw. it's the same task in all cases. in fact one so small, that i shouldn't have seen the powermac be the worst performer. it should have done it in it's sleep. i mean, i suppose it could be due to ie, i think that is possible. but it sure seems like it should have been the fastest without question. and if it is, and the guys in the store let it get screwed up somehow, what's that say about the emphasis (or lack of) that apple is putting on the high end right now?

take a deep breath here hulk and think. i'm not comparing macs to pc's, i'm comparing macs to macs. it's not a matter of loving them or not. it's a matter of what i saw.
and you surely could be right about more intensive apps showing the diffs better. i don't know.

When did I say that you were comparing PCs to Macs? But even when comparing Macs to Macs compare them fairly:
-Chimera VS IE VS Mozilla VS Safari VS ANY OTHER browser on the same internet connection with histories, caches and everything cleared first
-iApps
-Games
-Other apps in general
-Peripherals added on those Macs
-Other hardware in general

And not just I loaded TextEdit on a G3/300 and on a Dual G4/1.25 and I found out that the Dual Mac is worst than G3 or same...

I don't care if one compares Apples to Apples or Apples to Anything else as long as it is a fair and square benchmark...

For example I know and insist 1000% that Macs are worst than PCs when one likes to play games... Or when one needs MORE than dual CPUs Macs is still not the best solution even with multiple XServes... And these are SOME examples were I know that Apple lacks solutions...

Also, I know for sure that software needs a major boosting from Apple (and not only Apple but other major players as well) as RacerX meant...

And one other thing: Do you guys know what Apple has up its sleeve with the next generation of desktop solutions? I said it before and I will say it again: Have faith in Apple... Didn't ANYONE noticed that the lowered their prices MORE than ever before? But they couldn't make otherwise I hear you say because they will make their customers flee to Wintels so, let's whine somer more I here you say...

Well, whine all you want while I will "just" send Apple and other companies emails on how they may improve their software and hardware if they will listen to what their customers want/need... Are you sure that whining gets you what you like or emails from people like me? Dunno! Just a thought :rolleyes:
 
Apple might make a lot of people a lot of money in the stockmarket, in about 2 - 3 years

Today, Apple has a better OS, and better hardware designs, and the best in innovation.

Apple also has much higher prices and a much slower CPU.

What we've seen Apple overcome in the past is much harder to accomplish than deploying a new CPU and lowering prices.

Apple has survived and come through bleak times, when everyone has predicted their demise. They completely eradicated their old OS, which was 15 years old, and put UNIX on the mac desktop, which is the most genius move which may have ever been done in the industry.

At this point, everything about mac is better except price and CPU, and fixing these problems is easier than what's been already done. It's not a walk in the park, however, and it's the last step Apple must take to poise itself to eventually increase its marketshare to about 50% of the market and become great again, as it once was.

Once apple gets its faster CPU it will be better than the Wintel world in:
- Design
- Innovation
- Operating System
- Speed (Better or equal)
- Software
- Ease of use
- Stability
- Electricity / Efficiency / Noise

- PRICE (???)

If price does indeed come down, then we will see that Apple will be better than windows and wintels in EVERY WAY except marketshare and distribution of software.

Network effect does make software more desirable. If a billion people have microsoft excel, then excel will be much more desirable than some other spreadsheet app.

But in today's open standards world, network effect loses its, ahem, effect. If you can open an excel file in any spreadsheet program and work with it, and save it in a cross platform open file format (which excel reads anyway), then what does network effect matter? As long as there is software to get your task done and share it with anyone on any platform, Apple's smaller distribution of software will not be a barrier to Apple's gain of marketshare.

The only exception to this rule is in games. But as Apple gains marketshare publishers will make all games for Apple as well, and get the bonus that now their game is already running on Unix too!

So indeed, Apple will be better in EVERY way, PERIOD. There will be NO reason to buy a PC, as long as a salesperson is aware and unbiased.

Now, what if price is still higher in the future? This will effectively slow down apple's gain of marketshare, but not stop it. With a new faster CPU, apple will still be able to make more sales at higher prices since it has much better hardware and software and will be accepted as a premium product, and worth the extra money. But the masses will still have a good reason to not buy Apple, price.

But if Apple wants to create a firestorm of sales and rapidly gain marketshare, it will lower prices as well as get the new faster CPU.

With Apple better in every way, as well as with Mac OS X and the geeks and salespeople not having any reason to sell a PC instead of an Apple, the masses will all buy Apple, and PC sales will decline.

This will be the day when Apple is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY, and the marketshare starts rising to 10%.... 20%.... 30%.....

and a lot of people will make a lot of money on Apple stock.

---

Ok, now back to reality: while Apple is accomplishing all of the above, the Windows world will be doing their own stuff to compete with Apple. They will get a new Windows OS after XP (but not for years), they will increase speed and lower prices as well.

Apple may not get up to 30% marketshare for maybe 5, 6 years or more. OEM is not a factor in Apple's marketshare in the long run. Apple is its own OEM.

But I still see it happening. I see a point where Apple holds all the cards, and Windows and wintels start to suffer.

This will happen when Apple triples its current marketshare, and at the same time, Linux gets much bigger, and Windows is barely moving away from XP to a new version.

Mac OS X and Unixes will be compatible and friendly, and Windows will not. Microsoft and PCs will not lose marketshare, but they won't be able to stop Apple from hitting 30 - 50% marketshare eventually.

As for today, the Alienware machine stomps Apple in raw processing power, but don't forget that Mac OS X is still better at multitasking.

The alienware machine is a better choice if you need a workstation to do this one task. But if you're a consumer, you will have a better experience surfing the net, burning a DVD, listening to MP3s, working with your photoshop files, all at the same time, with a mac.

And that's today!

Also, consumers and the mass market will make Apple a lot more money than professionals. And I love Apple because while they know this and are marketing to them, they are not sell outs like AOL and they are able to keep the pros AND the consumers happy at the same time.

I was about to ditch macs forever until I heard of the OS X public beta, and I hung on to Apple ever since (even though it only came through for me as a computer until all the big apps were released for it, and Jaguar came out.)

Apple is truly a great company, and is about to rise like a phoenix. And I hope I get that Apple stock at the right time! It's 14 bucks a share right now, and Microsoft is at 55 bucks a share! I can see it doubling or more, if apple truly lowers prices and gets its faster CPU and gobbles up marketshare.

Well, I've said enough.
 
It was a tad long, but I've read it. ;)

But I think you're wrong in one point: Apple won't (and it shouldn't) lower their prices. I think "Apple: Lower your prices!" has been a cry from almost everywhere ever since Apple introduced the Macintosh in 1984. I've heard it so many times. Apple _did_ lower their prices. They've sold us the cheap PowerBook 150 at some point, they now have a 999$ iBook. We once had the PowerMac 4400 (which showed how it shouldn't be done) and we have the iMac and eMac. Apple shouldn't go cheaper. _Because_ Apple is better. Very-cheap-machines just take a piece of the expensive-cake. It would be like with the clones back in 1997.

And I certainly hope Apple will never be viewed as a company that offers a 'cheap alternative' to Windows machines. Macs are a bit more expensive. But you also _get_ more.

Once the Mac's processors are again closer in performance to Intel/AMD processors, price will not be the biggest problem.
 
Yes but in this new market, Apple is trying to gain the mass market, the consumers. This is what makes price so important.

If apple wants to gain marketshare fast enough to get to its goals before microsoft comes out with a great big barrier to apple's marketshare, then it needs to offer a consumer level set of macs with lower prices AND a faster chip. It can still offer higher priced pro level models, too.
 
Hmm... I think Apple should definitely not compete with Walmart style offers. Want a cheap Mac? The iBook is 999$. I don't think such a good notebook should be even cheaper.

About the processors: Yes, faster is needed.
 
true, I don't mean to go below $999 for the iBook. That's already a pretty good price, but it should have a similar price offering with the "new chip". Not a G3, not a G4......
 
Apple can't lower prices *that* far - 'exessive' hardware costs are needed for Apple in order to cover their expenses in developing MacOS. While Microsoft has ~90-95% of the market to divide Windows development costs across, Apple has both to stay ahead of MS in OS development, while only being able to divide costs across ~5% of computer users. (Development cost is the major factor here - distribution costs are negligable by comparison.) Thus, the cash for OS development can't all come from OS sales - MacOS would become too expensive by comparison (This is why there will be no 'Marklar', or OS X for x86 in any form.) Apple needs the exessive margins in order to stay afloat and continue to improve on MacOS X.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!
 
...I think that the next destop line be it PowerMacs, e/iMacs will follow the path that Apple started with iBooks and PowerBooks!

That means more stuff with less money!

Also, I believe that as long as quality stays high the same will hold truth for Macs... But I can understand Apple lowering quality if needed just to lower the price some more... I for one do not want such thing but still... Who knows?

Also, not for a moment forget that Apple isn't selling only hardware and software but services as well! Services like AppleCare, .Mac, etc. so they earn money from other things too! Not to mention that they sell their OS from time to time too!

Apple can and it will lower the prices when they HAVE to! For now, they don't have to... ;)
 
Originally posted by hulkaros

Also, not for a moment forget that Apple isn't selling only hardware and software but services as well! Services like AppleCare, .Mac, etc. so they earn money from other things too! Not to mention that they sell their OS from time to time too!

If you view Apple's total earnings, you would see that hardware sales are 85 - 90% of their revenue.

So .mac, OS X, iLife, AppleCare support, etc. only make up 10% of their income.

Until that changes, hardware will always be at a similar price from apple.

But once apple gains more market share in the future, their software and services revenue will go up as well. Then apple will have more options.

For now, all I want is a new CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Just a little note for everyone to think about...

I switched my parents, I heavily emphasised how much better a new iMac would be and told them it wouldn't crash, etc, etc, etc.
They love the look of it, and seem happy with the idea...

So we pick it up, I install it and off they go.

First thing my mum says to me whilst opening Internet Explorer:
"Why is it so slow? The old computer was faster"

I had no answer.
I couldn't be bothered explaining either..

They get on fine with the mac now.
 
give them Navigator (Chimera) or Apple's new Safari.

DON'T LET THEM USE EXPLORER

the explanation is that "explorer is piece of trash software"

Even though we all want a new CPU for our macs, nothing slows down a computer more than bad software.

I could have a 2 billion terrahertz processor that will be like crap compared to a 100 mhz G3, if the software on the former is trash, and the G3 has well written software.

Please show your parents Safari or Chimera.
 
Originally posted by solrac
If you view Apple's total earnings, you would see that hardware sales are 85 - 90% of their revenue.

So .mac, OS X, iLife, AppleCare support, etc. only make up 10% of their income.

Until that changes, hardware will always be at a similar price from apple.

But once apple gains more market share in the future, their software and services revenue will go up as well. Then apple will have more options.

For now, all I want is a new CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, but isn't services supposedly a better way of earning money? What I mean is that they leave a bigger margin for profits than hardware selling business or so I think... And maybe just maybe the 10% or so figure is actually a better figure than 30%-40% figure of hardware business... I don't know :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by hulkaros
Yes, but isn't services supposedly a better way of earning money? What I mean is that they leave a bigger margin for profits than hardware selling business or so I think... And maybe just maybe the 10% or so figure is actually a better figure than 30%-40% figure of hardware business... I don't know :rolleyes:

Yes, Apple makes much higher margins selling Jaguar than ANY hardware they'll ever make.

Now that Jaguar is done, and on store shelves, apple's profit margin is like 99.99999999999%. That's the beauty of software. (The only overhead is packing / printing / boxes.)

But with hardware, their profit margin maybe 50% or less, because of the costs of getting the materials and putting them together.

This is why Bill Gates is the riches man on earth. Because for every $100 of software microsoft sells, their profits are like $99 (minus whatever marketing they do.)

So once apple has more computers out there, they will start to make more money on software, than hardware.

But today, they are still a hardware company mainly.

That is why microsoft is bigger and richer than apple. Microsoft = software. Apple = hardware.

Microsoft sells software to everyone that bought a computer from dell, compaq, gateway, etc, and they don't even sell any hardware. They just make pure profits.

Apple only sells software to people with Apples, and they have expense of making hardware. (Thankfully they make money on their hardware.)

Can't wait for what's to come, though...
 
Originally posted by stealth
when 10.3 comes out . will we be expected to pay $130 again ?

But I hope not! :D

Let's just say that if it is worth it I will more than happy to pay such a low price...

Windows XP Home costs about $100 and XP Pro costs about $200 if I'm not mistaken... So, I guess $100-$150 is a logical price for such a product!?
 
Back
Top