Total Disaster? Here's why.

V

vitaboy

Registered
A caveat: I'm basing this analysis on the specs posted by MacMinute as of August 12, 2002, before the official release of the revised G4 towers.

Basically, although I've been a Mac user since 1984 when my best friend in middle school showed me his cool 128 KB Mac, I'm afraid we Mac users are headed into a winter of discontent. A storm is brewing and ironically, the cause is rooted in the disharmony within Apple.

Namely, the revised hardware is incredibly underwhelming. While the low-end model is actually a good deal, the mid-range and high-end are priced way, way too much to generate anything but tepid interest even from this long-time Mac user.

But here's why Apple is in danger of being caught in a "perfect storm." The reason is Jaguar.

Let's assume that, based on published accounts of near final builds, that Jaguar will provide a 30% performance boost across the board for virtually all OS X capable systems. So, for a mere $129, one can be instantly and noticebly more productive.

The cheapest machine will sell for $1700. That means, all things considered equal, that dual 867 MHz G4 desktop will have to provide more than a 400% performance boost over the machine it replaces in order to match the bang-to-buck ratio that the $129 Jaguar upgrade provides. For the math challenged, a 400% boost means FIVE times faster than your existing machine.

The analysis looks even worse for the mid- and high-range models. Do the math. I won't do it because it's just too scary.

In other words, with MacWorld SF just five months away at this point in time, with the G5 on the horizon and Mac users dying for things like USB 2.0, integrated Bluetooth, 800 Mbits/sec FireWire, and next generation wireless support, Jaguar will actually end up killing pro desktop sales.

Simply put, Jaguar provides so much more bang for the buck that it will actually make holding out a viable strategy against the weak efforts these revised machines represent.

Can you deal with 30% performance boost and massive new functionality for $129 for the next five months? How many pro Mac users out there need to replace their machines so badly they are going to be buying the G4 equivalent of the Mac IIvx?

It looks like a dark and stormy winter ahead indeed.
 
You simply seem to forget that you can use Mac OS X 10.2 on the new machines, too. If I think my machine is too slow, I think about what I can do to be more productive. Jaguar's better speed (which is NOT 30% across the board, but it's good, anyway) is one thing. But a new machine with a faster processor, better bus speed and new graphics hardware will _still_ be much better. Then I'll consider the money, as always. Plus Jaguar is optimized for the newest processors _and_ especially for dual processor systems. If you're among the 5% of Mac users who already have a dual processor system, then your points may have some value, but that's not the case for 95% (or more). You also have to consider that most Mac users do _not_ have Quicksilver G4s but graphite machines or even upgraded b/w-G3s!
 
It's true my analysis depends on the 30% performance number. That figure is a "reasonable guesstimate" based on different reports on near final builds I've seen (Macosrumors.com, for example, recently reported 35-50% faster speeds across the board).

But my point is this - no matter what system, if it's OS X capable, Jaguar will be enough of an improvement over whatever current set-up one has that it simply will not be worth the dollars to get a halfway-house system a mere 5 months from the next big expo. I know Jaguar doesn't make the processor faster, but I'm talking about USER LEVEL PERFORMANCE. Jaguar simply removes existing roadblocks and makes things much more efficient so the system runs closer to the theoretical maximum than it used to.

And if anything, a lot of pro users are holding back because Quark won't be out with an OS X product until Jan 2003 at the earliest. There is really no reason for these users to upgrade now.

Yes, the new machines will come with Jaguar. But taking the 30% figure, even with Jaguar, the $1699 low-end model will still have to deliver more than 5 times the speed of the machine it's replacing in order to match the bang-to-buck ratio.

The high-end machines will have to deliver 767% more performance over the machine it's replacing and that figure already accounts the fact that Jaguar is included with the new machines. Another way to look at it is that high-end machine needs to be almost 9 times faster than the machine it replaces, when it's probably less than 50% faster than the needs-to-be-5-times-faster $1700 machine.

The DDR and the higher FSB is great - but not at these prices(with the exception of the $1700 model).

I remember the IIvx debacle very clearly. A friend of mine spent $3000+ for an 030-based machine when it was introduced. Three months later, Apple introduced a cheaper, literally 3 times faster 040 machine (the Centris line, if memory serves correctly). He ditched Macs and never looked back, sadly.

I'm not saying that the new machines won't provide a massive speed increase over first gen G4s and B&W G3s. But my guess is that those owners will be satisfied with the performance/functionality boost that the el-cheapo $129 Jaguar upgrade will provide for the next 5 months. They can wait 5 months to see if Apple will finally have the G5 machines with Jaguar's nice performance enhancement to smooth the ride. It makes better sense to simply upgrade the OS and integrate the new functionality into your workflow than blowing a wad of cash on machines that are clearly already obsolete.
 
I think the point vitaboy is making is Apple's hardware-software sync-up really sucks. It won't be worth the slight increase in performance if you buy Jaguar now (which you will, because OSX 10.1 sux) the performance increase will be enough to allow you to hold out for the faster machines.

Meanwhile, while everyone waits for the faster machines, Intel and AMD will continue to battle for 1st position, making Mac hardware a joke.

This is the problem with Apple right now--they're so small, they have to milk their own user base for cash. That means they're going to take their time rolling out new products, in small intervals, so that they maximize their profits--all because they have to maintain control of what little they already control.

I'd say this is the perfect argument for the "reverse switch"
 
Originally posted by vitaboy
It makes better sense to simply upgrade the OS and integrate the new functionality into your workflow than blowing a wad of cash on machines that are clearly already obsolete.
Click to expand...

Already obsolete--great d*mn point.

me...
 
I do want to add that Apple's consumer strategy is much more effective since consumers have much more different needs from pro users. No problems there. Same with the TiBook, which still blows away any notebook out there (and my 400 MHz TiBook still runs great with 10.1.5)

But the pro desktop strategy reeks to high heaven. I said it elsewhere, but Mac users are smart enough to pay for innovation. They will, however, chuck compromise out the door faster than a woodchuck can chuck.

The G4 Cube was a disaster because Apple tried to sell an elegant but compromised system for $1700. It would have sold like hot cakes for $999.

My point is, in an island universe, these revised Macs are a good deal when compared with the Macs they are replacing. But like the Cube, the mid and high-end models are priced 30% too high to sell. The pro line is where Apple makes all the margins and Apple is going to be bleeding red ink unless it wakes up a smells the coffee.

Let's not forget the Cube misfire caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. What will happen to pro desktop sales over the next 5 months is truly frightening to think about as pros upgrade to Jaguar, but hold off for the G5 Macs.
 
hmm... but then again the 'pro' line is targetted at a different audience. i actually _don't_ think the new PowerMacs are too pricey at all. you can get a great value in the eMac, if you want the power without the price.

if Apple would target the PowerMacs directly to the gamers out there, then I'd be of your opinion, but a PowerMac is still only a part of the equation if you do real work. and if the machine can be used to work on for 2-3 years (and the first g4s still make sense in the graphics design business, for example), then a price difference of, say, 300$ just isn't THAT important. you can save far more by not updating all of your software everytime a new version comes out.

it seems to me you look at it in a slightly off perspective.

let's compare it to the powerbooks, as this is what interests me far more. sure, i could buy a tibook 800 today, and it wouldn't only give me 300 more mhz, there's also the graphics card and the better screen, but i wouldn't really get more work done faster and better. but if i had a Pismo 400 or 500 today (the last G3 PowerBook), then the new g4 powerbook would make much more sense.

and believe me, for many graphics design companies, this really _IS_ an island, since the cost of switching to a Wintel world (even if applied only to some machines at first) plus the larger amount of tech problems plainly is too expensive. also, we simply don't WANT to switch and see no reason to do so, since while MHz _might_ (but doesn't strictly) mean more power, it CERTAINLY doesn't mean more productivity.

back to the new powermacs: the DDR-SDRAM was needed badly, it's there now. faster processors are great. being able to buy the low- or mid-range machine and get a dual processor machine is DEFINITELY a great plus. also getting jaguar is super.

plus: sometimes innovation is in hardware (the iMac was and is great, the enclosure of the G4 is perfect, doesn't have to be changed) and sometimes in software (Mac OS X 10.1 has made our work more productive than with OS 9, and Jaguar goes even further!). and yes, we pay for that innovation. (with we i mean our small graphics office in switzerland.)
 
Hey, I'm a pro Mac user. The last consumer Mac I bought was a Quadra 605. Ever since then, I've owned a PM6100, 8500, G3/266MT, PBG3/333, G4/400, PBG4/500, PBG4800DP, and most recently my PBG4/800.

That said, if my business right now suddenly needed another Mac machine - I would not buy one of the pro machines. I'd probably opt for the iMac Widescreen.

I'm a pro user with pro needs, but these machines just don't offer enough for anybody who has bought a machine in the last 12 months to want to pony up $2400-3200 USD.

Plus, it's the first hardware revision in 10 years that's made me wish they hadn't messed with the previous design. Not only that, but a built in Zip drive is no longer an option. Basically, the case is the same as the previous generation QS, with the front and back being redesigned. The back actually looks cool with all those holes for cooling. But the front is just butt ugly. It looks like a Tiwanese PC manufacturers attempt to rip of the QS design, not an evolution by Apple.

As for holding out for new pro machines at MWSF, I wouldn't hold my breath. Apple got 8 months out of the last QS release. I doubt this one will get any less.
 
Zip drives aren't really needed any more. And you can always get an external one. But CDRWs have replaced them. Yes, you still might want to read older Zips, but why not do it on an older machine or with an external drive? New users don't need it, and I don't, either.

From the Quicksilvers I've learned that you must look at the computers irl, can't really tell from a website what they _really_ look like, same for the PowerBook. Before I ever saw a Ti, I thought 'okay, nice, but I liked them black'. When I saw one, people could see a large, white bubble above my head reading 'I WANT A Ti!'.

Well, if I had the money right now, I'd replace my TiBook with a TiBook 800 and my PC with one of these babies. But I haven't got the money, and so I'll wait for 1 GHz + TiBooks.
 
Originally posted by fryke

and believe me, for many graphics design companies, this really _IS_ an island, since the cost of switching to a Wintel world (even if applied only to some machines at first) plus the larger amount of tech problems plainly is too expensive. also, we simply don't WANT to switch and see no reason to do so, since while MHz _might_ (but doesn't strictly) mean more power, it CERTAINLY doesn't mean more productivity.
Click to expand...

I never said that these Mac users will be switching.

I suggested that they would simply be not buying. Either way, Apple is going to be slammed hard.


back to the new powermacs: the DDR-SDRAM was needed badly, it's there now. faster processors are great. being able to buy the low- or mid-range machine and get a dual processor machine is DEFINITELY a great plus. also getting jaguar is super.
Click to expand...

Again, the point is - DDR-SDRAM was need badly, but not at these prices! There's a great anecdote from decades ago. A large department store received a shipment of cheap polyester men's ties. The copy editor for the ad department was asked to write something up for a newspaper ad to try and sell ties which were considered unsellable. He wrote:

"These ties may not be the best material or quality, but at 25 cents apiece, they are a steal."

The ties sold out the same day the ad ran, and the department store had to order new shipments.

Now, these new Macs aren't cheap ass quality, but at $3300, they are not only not a steal, but they are a rip-off. I'm not saying Apple isn't going to sell any. But Apple's going to sell far fewer than it needs to....and not because pro users are necessarily switching to Wintel, but because they will be holding back on new purchases.


plus: sometimes innovation is in hardware (the iMac was and is great, the enclosure of the G4 is perfect, doesn't have to be changed) and sometimes in software (Mac OS X 10.1 has made our work more productive than with OS 9, and Jaguar goes even further!). and yes, we pay for that innovation. (with we i mean our small graphics office in switzerland.)
Click to expand...

Exactly! Jaguar goes so far, it make holding out a very viable alternative.

As for the enclosure, I think the front is probably the most gaudy and cheap-ass looking design Apple has come out with since....I can't remember when. The plate in the middle looks totally incongruous and with both trays open, it looks very unwieldy. It's just a preference thing, but not very attractive in my opinion.
 
Obviously this new Pro line is a system that is painfully in transition. Rather than waste time retooling the case and tweaking the architecture, just releasing an all dually line with the current architecture(pre 8/13) would have been decent enough until MWSF if indeed all-new systems will be announced then. And if that rumor turns out to be correct this line cf systems announced today will have the shortest life-span.
Which kinda gets you thinking we might not see anything until MWNY again. That may just be disastrous.
 
Forget about MWSF or MWNY, today shows that Apple chooses to release hardware whenever it's ready to be released.

Vitaboy said: "Now, these new Macs aren't cheap ass quality, but at $3300, they are not only not a steal, but they are a rip-off."

So you just forget about the 1700$ model again? Maybe Apple doesn't even get enough 1.25 GHz processors to deliver the amount of high-end PowerMacs needed? Maybe they want to sell the mid-range model like fresh cookies, because they almost get the ATI card for free (because ATI _wants_ back into the Apple market)?

While I wouldn't buy the highend model for myself, it's much too pricey, I might consider the middle one, or even the lowest one, because now I can get a dual processor PowerMac for the entry-level price of a PowerMac! Never SEEN before. And if I think a SuperDrive is more important to me than a dual processor machine, then I can get an eMac or iMac for the price, which is a terribly nice machine, too!

Believe me: The machines Apple is offering as of today, while they're not exactly, as you put it, a steal - they're a fantastic line-up for the moment. Apple never was the company to offer you 'steals'. Their hardware was always a high-price player in the market of desktop computers. But I also always got what I expected from a high-price player: A finished product and good quality. (Okay, my PowerBook 5300ce might tell a different story, but exceptions sometimes happen.)

Apple will get slammed 'as hard' (like you said) as always: People who think Apple's computers are too pricey won't buy them, or if they're clever, buy an iMac/iBook/eMac. And people who need a newer, faster PowerMacintosh will buy a newer, faster PowerMacintosh. And they'll buy now, because right now those machines are new and won't be replaced soon. (The longer you wait now, the shorter the time period it will be the newest.)
 
Vitaboy also said: "The cheapest machine will sell for $1700. That means, all things considered equal, that dual 867 MHz G4 desktop will have to provide more than a 400% performance boost over the machine it replaces in order to match the bang-to-buck ratio that the $129 Jaguar upgrade provides. For the math challenged, a 400% boost means FIVE times faster than your existing machine."

Now, I don't want to call YOU math challenged, but have you ever SOLD your old machine when you buy a new one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top