iMac Sales Not Leaping Ahead

Well, my view on this is that companies like Microsoft and Adobe want to truly make sure their applications run perfectly on each platform they release them for. When something doesn't work just so, Adobe has every graphic artist who is running the latest hardware at their doorstep demanding costly upgrades and cycle testing. Naturally, the development cycle of a smaller company is more off the cuff, while the development of anything released to the public at Adobe and MS is quite a production. If you look at a simple windows XP security patch, it takes around 5-6 days to test the branches and verify it for release, depending on the conditions of the problem.

With regards to carbonization, this is a real issue, however generally large banks of code have large banks of developers to maintain it. I'd be willing to bet that Office, as Photoshop, is singing on the Intel Macs, however it's stuck in an internal beta review somewhere.

I'd say, all in all, because they were released a bit early, we aren't really going to see huge sales of these

boxes until Adobe and Microsoft release their main suite tools, which should be in line with the original release date for the intel macs. This is indicative of the cultures of the companies involved, which is a different topic all together.

This doesn't phase me at all because of these facts, and it is not indicative of the Intelmac platform as a whole. Granted, with the economic aspects of a product which doesn't show an immediate benefit for consumers at work, I think we need to wait until at least Q3 of 06 before making any decisions as the difficulty of the transition or financial viability of the platform.

Random thoughs of a armchair economist/corporate planner,

cmoski

If mac's dual booted, i would have ordered a mac book pro and a imac by now. Beacuse of the dual boot problems im going with a osx x86 amd system. I like OSX but i cant live in it alone!

Well the only thing that apple can sell in the x86 world are laptops, doesn't make sense to buy a desktop from apple when you can build yourself something much better and cheaper.

Well the only thing that apple can sell in the x86 world are laptops, doesn't make sense to buy a desktop from apple when you can build yourself something much better and cheaper.

First of all, Apple doesn't legally allow someone to build himself a Mac Clone. And I doubt it is cheaper if you consider your time and effort to get a hacked version running.

Apple is dropping the ball by not allowing XP to run easilly on the Mac Intel since people will start doing the opposite (MAC on PC hardware) which will really hurt them the most.

It seems that it will be harder to boot XP on a Mac than boot MAC on a PC box.

I'm planning on buying a new intel mac, but i have no interest in an iMac or a MacBook. I dont like the fact that all my hardware is crammed behind a 17 screen, maybe its just because im a pc fanatic, but i rather have a separate monitor and case, so i dont have to buy special low profile parts to replace when womehting goes bad or i want to upgrade. but ive never dealt with a mac, so maybe thats not even possible to upgrade in the first place. Regardless I'd be more comfertable with a new intel G5, or whatever they will be called. I'm sure im not the only one that feels this way.

If mac's dual booted, i would have ordered a mac book pro and a imac by now. Beacuse of the dual boot problems im going with a osx x86 amd system. I like OSX but i cant live in it alone!

It's funny that you say this, but every time someone actually *tries* to build something comparable, let alone cheaper, it doesn't work out that way.

As was recently quoted elsewhere; "conventional wisdom" is often really "conventional ignorance".

The Mac may look more expensive, but that's because you're buying everything up front in a single bundle. Building a PC you're nickled-and-dimed to death, which is somehow "cheaper".

Building a PC you're nickled-and-dimed to death, which is somehow "cheaper".

I dont neccessarily agree with that. A PC COULD be cheaper than a Mac, but if you actually buy PC parts that are close to the same parts in a Mac, your at about the same price, maybe a few hundred buck cheaper. only reason people can build cheaper pc's from the start, is because they are using off-brand parts, which will cost you more in the long run anyways. It's the classic "get what you pay for"

If mac's dual booted, i would have ordered a mac book pro and a imac by now. Beacuse of the dual boot problems im going with a osx x86 amd system. I like OSX but i cant live in it alone!

Building an AMD osx86 box is, to my knowledge, not currently possible. If you need a dual-boot machine, stick with what works.

It's funny that you say this, but every time someone actually *tries* to build something comparable, let alone cheaper, it doesn't work out that way.

 

As was recently quoted elsewhere; "conventional wisdom" is often really "conventional ignorance".

 

The Mac may look more expensive, but that's because you're buying everything up front in a single bundle. Building a PC you're nickled-and-dimed to death, which is somehow "cheaper".

well for the average idiot maybe but if you know what are you doing it will be definitively cheaper and faster.

I agree that buying a mac is the best thing for idiots afterall that's the only hope for apple to not close his hardware division for bankruptcy .

I dont neccessarily agree with that. A PC COULD be cheaper than a Mac, but if you actually buy PC parts that are close to the same parts in a Mac, your at about the same price, maybe a few hundred buck cheaper. only reason people can build cheaper pc's from the start, is because they are using off-brand parts, which will cost you more in the long run anyways. It's the classic "get what you pay for"

well apple has always used the cheapest {censored} they could cram in, it's not like they use the state of art of hardware

a few years ago--in 2002 i built my first system:

Tyan tiger mpx mother board

dual amd 2000+ athlon xp processors(yes xp...saved some money by getting them before

amd dissabled the their multiprocessor thingie..the guy at the store explained it to me but now i forget all the details)

512 mb kingston ram

100 gb 7200 western digital hard drive

sound blaster audigy

nvidia geforce 4 mx 440 64 mb

It boots in a couple seconds i am not exadurating, and it still seams a heck of alot faster then those dual G5s i see in the stores.

I am dual booting windoze and suse linux.

o yea...and the price tag after getting rebates etc...buying all the parts seperatly was 770$

this did not include a monitor...but neither does the power mac.

anyhow--all though it lives in a beige box, i love this system iv never seen a mac nearly as fast though every mac is alot more expensive.

it felt a little rediculous sice i had purchased an ibook g3 500 and paid a premium a year prior.

seemed like based on the price tag that the ibook should have been the screamer and the desktop a walk in the mud...couldnt have been more the opposite.

anyway just my experience

Apple is stuck... They forget that the coolest thing about a Mac is the OS. I don't see anything in the macbook that tells me that the hardware is superior to any other Intel based Laptop. The iMac with it's screen to me is a waste. I have two 21" Sony monitors, I don't want another monitor.

Price is another factor, Apple is expensive compared to the rest of the Intel world. I can build a system using a guide published on this site that will run a hacked version of OS X for $200. I can up the CPU to a 3.5G, double the ram / hard drive, and purchase a '20 inch LCD for less than the '20 iMac.

Let's face it. I would like to use OS X, but the price is one that I can't justify. You buy a PC because you want it to do certain things. E-Mail, News, Web, and other applications you need to get your job done. I can do them in Windows / Linux or Mac. OS X is the OS I would prefer to use, but I don't have money to throw away therefore I'll opt for a regular Intel based vanilla system and run SuSE with KDE 3.5. Sure it isn't as nice as running OS X, but KDE is a fine desktop -- better than Windoze, and for several hundred dollars less, I still get my work done.

People want to run Osx , apple hardware has no value now that they can't claim any allegged hardware superiority , it's 100% common pc hardware now . I think apple will learn that the hardway

I'm not seeing how it would not be cheaper, maybe I'm misunderstang something here.

My very nice off brand made in china aluminum case was about 75 bucks from fry's electronics. $75.00

Asrock dual 915-GL motherboard from newegg, fifty-something bucks. $60.00

1 gig of OCZ memory was two maching sticks of 512 called gold special or something like that. $129.00

Sony dvd writer from fry's was I think around 60 after rebate. $60.00

Power supply is OCZ modstream, don't rember how much so i'll round it off. $100.00

Floppy is also Sony dont remember but it was cheap around 20 bucks, I'll round it off. $50.00

Western digital Sata 160 was around 90 but with a 20 rebate " $100.00

Zalman heatsink and cooler was something like 35 or 39 bucks $50.00

I already has some wire ties and some convoluted tubing but if I had to buy or get a screwdriver $30.00

> total= $654.00

the only thing cheaper would be a mac mini and there is no way that is as fast as this is.

even if you add my samsung monitor, my new apple keyboard and apple mouse which I can use with other computers, it's still alot cheaper than I payed for my 12' powerbook $1299.00. and the only budget items were the case and mb but I think this mb is very good.

Oh {censored} I forgot to add the P4 processor 3.20E 200 bucks....

:mellow: hmmm, maybe crazymonkeypants has something there afterall.

ThinkSecret is reporting that sales of the new iMac have not been as high as Apple hoped.

To keep this topic back on topic, it has been reported that the ThinkSecret declaration was incorrect.

AppleInsider (I know how unpopular they are here):

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1490

Says:

Contrary to recent and unsubstantiated rumors, sales of Apple's new Intel-based iMac Core Duo desktops and MacBook Pro portables both appear to be strong, reports research and investment firm American Technology Research.

According to another article there, Amazone.com lists the highest-selling items, updated hourly:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-f...6851802-5848123

And on it:

1. Apple iMac Desktop with 17" Display MA199LL/A (1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 512 MB RAM, 160 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

2. Apple iMac Desktop with 20" Display MA200LL/A (2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 512 MB RAM, 250 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

3. Apple iBook Notebook 12.1" M9846LL/A (1.33 GHz PowerPC G4, 512 MB DDR SDRAM, 40 GB Hard Drive, Combo Drive, Built-in AirPort Extreme)

4. Apple MacBook Pro Notebook 15.4" MA090LL/A (1.67 GHz Intel Core Duo, 512 MB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

5. Apple MacBook Pro 15.4" Notebook MA091LL/A (1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 1 GB RAM, 100 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

6. Apple PowerBook Notebook 12.1" M9691LL/A (1.5 GHz PowerPC G4, 512 MB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

7. Apple iBook Notebook 14.1" M9848LL/A (1.42 GHz PowerPC G4, 512 MB DDR SDRAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

8. Apple iMac G5 Desktop with 17" MA063LL/A (1.9 GHz PowerPC G5, 512 MB RAM, 160 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

9. Sony VAIO VGN-TX650P/B 11.1" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 753, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, DVD+R Dbl Layer/DVD+/-RW Drive)

10. Apple iMac G5 Desktop with 20" MA064LL/A (2.1 GHz PowerPC G5, 512 MB RAM, 250 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

11. Apple PowerBook Notebook 15.2" M9969LL/A (1.67 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

12. Toshiba Satellite M55-S141 14" Notebook PC ( Intel Celeron M Processor 380, 256 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, CD-RW/DVD-ROM Drive)

13. HP Pavilion dv5020us 15.4" Notebook PC (AMD Turion 64 Mobile Processor ML-32, 1024 MB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, DVD+/-R/RW and CD-RW Combo Drive)

14. Toshiba Satellite A105-S2712 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 740 (Centrino), 512 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, DVD SuperMulti Drive)

Apple brings a total design philosophy to the table that no other PC maker can. The iMac is a shining example of this. Most of their current customers pay for that package. That being said, their philosophy doesn't agree with the wants or needs of everyone. Apple should open up to the conventional PC crowd whether it come a second brand or licensing. The use of EFI instead of that dinosaur called BIOS helps their situation.

stryder-

Nah, we still love AI here. And thanks for posting that - I had seen it but hadn't gotten around to posting it, mostly because I knew that someone else would.

:-)

Another moot thread. How about one of you geniuses go out and find out what kind of hardware apple uses (You can find out, they use third party optical drives and things) and try to build a PC with the exact same specs as a new intelMac and then tell me your machine is 'cheaper'. Apple doesn't make deals with other hardware companies because they bid the lowest, they make those deals based on whoever has the quality they're looking for while maintaining the same price range. The MILITARY goes by lowest bidder (just like your duct taped together boxes) and their stuff falls apart constantly. You don't buy a mac so you can replace everything in it, you buy a mac so YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Are iMac sales big among the digital media community? Hell no. Why would they replace their current quad G5 death towers with low end iMacs? That's just retarded. The MacBook Pro, on the other hand, is just what people are looking for. An elegant, powerful laptop with good power regulation. With the built in camera is also serves as a teleconferencing box. You can't point fingers just because people aren't going out and buying computers that don't fit their jobs.

Proponants of Adobe can also shut your holes. Adobe really only claims to support the mac, and they do so only because there's big money involved. In reality they've been building a carbon app with an ages old codebase. There's a reason that Adobe products are low quality bloatware; Adobe doesn't have to give a flying feces. There IS no photoshop competetor right now. GIMP is hardly even good enough to qualify for second best. Apple hasn't decided to compete with them directly yet, but as you can see with Aperature Adobe cares far more about simply keeping a monopoly than they do about actually making good products. Will Adobe crank out an x86 photoshop soon? Yes. Are they in any hurry? No. Why?...

Because later this year intel will be releasing their true next chips, the ones where they threw away netburst. The ones they actually care about, not the ones they just cranked out for publicity. They released Yonah, but the real show is going to be Merom and Conroe. Those will most likely be 64bit and THAT is what Adobe and the digital media world is waiting for. Conroe will more than likely replace the G5 while Merom will replace the CoreDuo, bringing new PowerMacs (or whatever they may be called) and THOSE are the workstations which graphics designers use. If graphics designers don't have new computers, why should Adobe care?

These things are facts, and there's no evidence otherwise to argue them. My only real question is what will become of the XServe? Will they use Woodcrest or Tigerton or just disappear? Who knows.

Another moot thread. How about one of you geniuses go out and find out what kind of hardware apple uses (You can find out, they use third party optical drives and things) and try to build a PC with the exact same specs as a new intelMac and then tell me your machine is 'cheaper'. Apple doesn't make deals with other hardware companies because they bid the lowest, they make those deals based on whoever has the quality they're looking for while maintaining the same price range. The MILITARY goes by lowest bidder (just like your duct taped together boxes) and their stuff falls apart constantly. You don't buy a mac so you can replace everything in it, you buy a mac so YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Well, just because these parts apple uses might be more expensive if even possible to obtain individually

does not mean they are 'better'. The price really has a lot to do with supply and demand. For instance, apple uses thier own unique power chord adapter for their laptops. I dont think that means they are better--they are definatly alot more expensive! I even think they are poorly designed. the power on my ibook never really worked properly even...was constantly switching to battery mode on and off...So where does that fit in with the theory of apple products "just working"? Speaking of which...the same ibook had its hard drive inexplicably crash...the system would not boot.

I had to purchase third party software disk wizard (or something) which did not fix the problem. In the end I had to reformat the drive and just prey it wouldnt happen again, but i was travelling and didnt have my OS disks on me....I dont know basically the phrase "apple just works" could not have been further from my experience. My current HP AMD turion laptop however does "just work" im even dual booting linux/windows

. I like OS X. I would purchase it if I could run it on a PC, but apple hardware ---i just dont trust it.

And by the way, if apple is not cutting any discounts, then how can they afford to pay off all that $$ they put into their slick designs?

Designer Jeans are not made out of better material then Levis--they just cost more and "look better" they cost alot because some one had to be paid alot to design them.

Should Apple have let their developers know ahead of time that January was the date? Some companies, like Quark, were able to release their apps at MacWorld. Whence Adobe and Microsoft?

He doesn't work for Adobe, Microsoft, or most any big Mac software publisher - so it seems to me most anyone with a full ADC membership could have been ready to release Universal Binary software and upgrades concurrent with today's date.

I believe there's a fundamental assumption here that the big developers (Adobe et al.) actually care enough about the Intel architecture Macs to devote sufficient time to this deployment.

Everyone who has both Mac and PC editions of their software for sale pays far more attention to their PC clients. Market share dictates where the development dollars are spent.

I reckon if Windows Vista were released next month, you'd find Adobe and other manufacturers ready to ship compatible upgrades and products for that platform. They simply don't really care about "the rest of us."

I haven't had any problems with my iBook power cord.. And that's saying nothing about the newest OS update, which won't let the battery fall below 95% charge when the computer is on AC power (and if you know anything about lithium ion batteries you'd know that this improves overall battery life).

Bear: Of course they don't. =\.

Another moot thread. How about one of you geniuses go out and find out what kind of hardware apple uses (You can find out, they use third party optical drives and things) and try to build a PC with the exact same specs as a new intelMac and then tell me your machine is 'cheaper'. Apple doesn't make deals with other hardware companies because they bid the lowest, they make those deals based on whoever has the quality they're looking for while maintaining the same price range.

I already put this to discussion:

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=6900

bahaha. Nice. Gotta give you props there ^^.