whispercricket (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
whispercricket) wrote2003-06-24 01:45 am
whispercricket) wrote2003-06-24 01:45 am
(no subject)
I've recovered (mostly) from my bout of technolust over the new G5, and I've started thinking a little more about Apple, and computers, and how it all fits together. I'm sleepy, so I don't know how much sense this will make.
Computer technology is outstripping what most people actually need. Unless you're a high-end graphics professional or work with tons of code and need it to compile really fast or are working with protein or other complex structures, etc. you don't need the power in the new G5, especially the top-end model (at least not now). In fact, most people would be fine with technology from a couple of years ago, because most people use computers to check their e-mail and surf the web and write letters and such, and as my dad said this evening, buying a freakin' speedy new desktop won't make the Internet run much faster. And he's mostly right. The only general reason I can think of that people might need / want faster computers in general is that software keeps getting more bloated, and the MacOS keeps getting prettier and shinier and faster computers are needed to keep it from getting bogged down. I'm pretty happy with the speed I get from my Pismo G3 / 400 for general use, but then, I'm not very picky.
I think it would be great if Apple came out with a middle desktop machine between the iMac and the Powermac, something like the Cube only with actual expansion. It'd probably only need 1-2 PCI slots (pretty much everything you need is on the motherboard), and 1-2 drive bays (can get away with one due to all the Firewire drives out there), but it would need to have its insides be accessible (unlike the iMacs). Give it a middling processor - enough to run the OS quickly and with a high enough MHz number for people who don't understand computers - and a combo drive (if you want to burn DVDs, move to the high end iMac or one of the towers). Put the USB and Firewire ports on the front.
This is the sort of machine that everyday people, and probably even most geeky people, really need. Maybe Apple has done market analysis and doesn't want to go for it, or maybe they just don't care.
The thing is, the announcement today wasn't about Apple and consumers, or Apple and its product line, or anything else. This was Apple going on hardcore performance, and it met every one of my expectations, which were pretty high. The new machines are going to be some of, if not THE, fastest machines out there, and Apple hasn't been in that position for way too long.
Does my father need one of the new desktops? Definitely not, and he knows that. Do I need to trade in my now 2 generations old G4 for a spiffy new top of the line machine? It's sad, but I really don't (I bet making DVDs would be a little quicker, but most of the time is spent waiting on me, not the computer). Are there people who need this performance now? Yes. Are there people who don't need this performance now who want it? Yes, very much so. :)
Does the fact that this performance is wasted for a lot of people invalidate what Apple's just done? I really don't think so. Apple has founded its whole image on pushing limits, both aesthetically and performance-wise, and it had been getting very safe with its desktops for the past year and more. They absolutely needed to do something like this.
Apple isn't like Microsoft - it's not great at marketing. It can put together spiffy ads and intriguing design and grab people in, but they go for the fringe of people - those who care. They don't go after the masses of people who buy computers at Best Buy or Circuit City and don't understand that higher MHz and cheaper computers aren't always better. They're trying, but they can't stoop as low as other computer vendors - I know Apple has a pretty high margin, but at the same time, their products are quality, and they last (I've bought three Macs, two of which are 3+ years old, and they still run flawlessly).
If Apple were smart at marketing, they would put out a small headless desktop that cost under $1000, and they would change the numbering of their OS away from the Unix point-release system (which even Sun has done - they went from 2.6 to 2.7 to 8), so that people would stop complaining that they are paying $129 for a point release. In general Unix terms (as far as I know), a point release is a major release. In general consumer terms, a point release is nothing and should be free. But if we had followed the old numbering system, we probably would have gone 10.0 to 10.5 (for 10.1) to 11 (for 10.2) to 12 (for 10.3), or maybe 10.0 to 10.3 to 10.5 to 11. I mean, 7.6 and 8 and 8.5 and 9 weren't free - I wasn't a Mac user for most of them, so it's possible that people complained this much back then also. But when very smart people, including my father tonight, make the snap judgement that because the release is called 10.3 it doesn't really give you that much (he then recanted and said he'd have to look at the new features), then there's something wrong with the way the OS is being marketed. No one really seems to notice that Windows (real Windows) costs more, partially because the numbering scheme isn't as compact.
Here's the thing - if you want the features in the next release of the OS, then pay for them. If you don't, then don't move to it and wait for the next revision. I'm using 10.1.5 on this laptop right now. I thought about upgrading to 10.2, since it's available, and I'd like to be able to get into the iTunes Music Store. But I don't have to upgrade - nothing is forcing me, and everything is working just fine as it is. If I want the new features in 10.2, then I should pay for them. If I want the new features in 10.3, then I should pay for them. And if I don't need them, then I don't have to pay. But neither does Apple need to provide those features to work for me in a previous version. This is why people upgrade software. Also, working for a software company, I understand completely how difficult it is to take new functionality and backport it to an older version (and I'm guessing it's much harder for an OS company than for a middleware company).
If Panther turns out to be 64-bit, then it doesn't matter what its number is, and it doesn't matter if most of the computers out there can't take advantage of it being 64-bit. That's a paid release. Usually I add up the feature set and then decide, but that one change is just way too big.
In summary - do I think what Apple did today was great for the general consumer? Not really (at least not for a few years, when we can actually use this power for everyday stuff). Could Apple better market itself to the general consumer, starting with adding a cheaper mid-range expandable desktop and changing the numbering scheme on the software (people have gut reactions that point releases are minor, even when they're not)? Absolutely. Does this invalidate what they did today with the G5s, in pretty much taking back their postion as the desktop performance leader? Not at all, and I think they needed it for their image.
And I don't really care if people switch or not (except for my parents, because I don't want to have to help them use a PC over the phone - it's bad enough as it is!). I kind of care if people switch for what I think are invalid reasons, and I completely care if people trash Macs with untrue statements (but I out-argued the guys at my work, so it's okay :) ). And I'm sick of people using the performance argument against Apple, and I'm really glad that they won't be able to do that so easily anymore. And I still want a G5. :)
Computer technology is outstripping what most people actually need. Unless you're a high-end graphics professional or work with tons of code and need it to compile really fast or are working with protein or other complex structures, etc. you don't need the power in the new G5, especially the top-end model (at least not now). In fact, most people would be fine with technology from a couple of years ago, because most people use computers to check their e-mail and surf the web and write letters and such, and as my dad said this evening, buying a freakin' speedy new desktop won't make the Internet run much faster. And he's mostly right. The only general reason I can think of that people might need / want faster computers in general is that software keeps getting more bloated, and the MacOS keeps getting prettier and shinier and faster computers are needed to keep it from getting bogged down. I'm pretty happy with the speed I get from my Pismo G3 / 400 for general use, but then, I'm not very picky.
I think it would be great if Apple came out with a middle desktop machine between the iMac and the Powermac, something like the Cube only with actual expansion. It'd probably only need 1-2 PCI slots (pretty much everything you need is on the motherboard), and 1-2 drive bays (can get away with one due to all the Firewire drives out there), but it would need to have its insides be accessible (unlike the iMacs). Give it a middling processor - enough to run the OS quickly and with a high enough MHz number for people who don't understand computers - and a combo drive (if you want to burn DVDs, move to the high end iMac or one of the towers). Put the USB and Firewire ports on the front.
This is the sort of machine that everyday people, and probably even most geeky people, really need. Maybe Apple has done market analysis and doesn't want to go for it, or maybe they just don't care.
The thing is, the announcement today wasn't about Apple and consumers, or Apple and its product line, or anything else. This was Apple going on hardcore performance, and it met every one of my expectations, which were pretty high. The new machines are going to be some of, if not THE, fastest machines out there, and Apple hasn't been in that position for way too long.
Does my father need one of the new desktops? Definitely not, and he knows that. Do I need to trade in my now 2 generations old G4 for a spiffy new top of the line machine? It's sad, but I really don't (I bet making DVDs would be a little quicker, but most of the time is spent waiting on me, not the computer). Are there people who need this performance now? Yes. Are there people who don't need this performance now who want it? Yes, very much so. :)
Does the fact that this performance is wasted for a lot of people invalidate what Apple's just done? I really don't think so. Apple has founded its whole image on pushing limits, both aesthetically and performance-wise, and it had been getting very safe with its desktops for the past year and more. They absolutely needed to do something like this.
Apple isn't like Microsoft - it's not great at marketing. It can put together spiffy ads and intriguing design and grab people in, but they go for the fringe of people - those who care. They don't go after the masses of people who buy computers at Best Buy or Circuit City and don't understand that higher MHz and cheaper computers aren't always better. They're trying, but they can't stoop as low as other computer vendors - I know Apple has a pretty high margin, but at the same time, their products are quality, and they last (I've bought three Macs, two of which are 3+ years old, and they still run flawlessly).
If Apple were smart at marketing, they would put out a small headless desktop that cost under $1000, and they would change the numbering of their OS away from the Unix point-release system (which even Sun has done - they went from 2.6 to 2.7 to 8), so that people would stop complaining that they are paying $129 for a point release. In general Unix terms (as far as I know), a point release is a major release. In general consumer terms, a point release is nothing and should be free. But if we had followed the old numbering system, we probably would have gone 10.0 to 10.5 (for 10.1) to 11 (for 10.2) to 12 (for 10.3), or maybe 10.0 to 10.3 to 10.5 to 11. I mean, 7.6 and 8 and 8.5 and 9 weren't free - I wasn't a Mac user for most of them, so it's possible that people complained this much back then also. But when very smart people, including my father tonight, make the snap judgement that because the release is called 10.3 it doesn't really give you that much (he then recanted and said he'd have to look at the new features), then there's something wrong with the way the OS is being marketed. No one really seems to notice that Windows (real Windows) costs more, partially because the numbering scheme isn't as compact.
Here's the thing - if you want the features in the next release of the OS, then pay for them. If you don't, then don't move to it and wait for the next revision. I'm using 10.1.5 on this laptop right now. I thought about upgrading to 10.2, since it's available, and I'd like to be able to get into the iTunes Music Store. But I don't have to upgrade - nothing is forcing me, and everything is working just fine as it is. If I want the new features in 10.2, then I should pay for them. If I want the new features in 10.3, then I should pay for them. And if I don't need them, then I don't have to pay. But neither does Apple need to provide those features to work for me in a previous version. This is why people upgrade software. Also, working for a software company, I understand completely how difficult it is to take new functionality and backport it to an older version (and I'm guessing it's much harder for an OS company than for a middleware company).
If Panther turns out to be 64-bit, then it doesn't matter what its number is, and it doesn't matter if most of the computers out there can't take advantage of it being 64-bit. That's a paid release. Usually I add up the feature set and then decide, but that one change is just way too big.
In summary - do I think what Apple did today was great for the general consumer? Not really (at least not for a few years, when we can actually use this power for everyday stuff). Could Apple better market itself to the general consumer, starting with adding a cheaper mid-range expandable desktop and changing the numbering scheme on the software (people have gut reactions that point releases are minor, even when they're not)? Absolutely. Does this invalidate what they did today with the G5s, in pretty much taking back their postion as the desktop performance leader? Not at all, and I think they needed it for their image.
And I don't really care if people switch or not (except for my parents, because I don't want to have to help them use a PC over the phone - it's bad enough as it is!). I kind of care if people switch for what I think are invalid reasons, and I completely care if people trash Macs with untrue statements (but I out-argued the guys at my work, so it's okay :) ). And I'm sick of people using the performance argument against Apple, and I'm really glad that they won't be able to do that so easily anymore. And I still want a G5. :)
no subject
In general, I'm in complete agreement...except for one little detail: patches.
Issues have arisen on 10.1 for which Apple's official fix is "Upgrade to 10.2". Not just minor bits of functionality, either - this has happened for security issues.
Granted, this is a time-honored tradition among software companies, as maintaining historic codebases quickly becomes a major money-suck, but upgrade pricing is an equally time-honored way of easing the sting of "Our product was defective, but to fix it you'll have to buy an entire new product."
If Apple were smart...they would change the numbering of their OS away from the Unix point-release system (which even Sun has done - they went from 2.6 to 2.7 to 8), so that people would stop complaining that they are paying $129 for a point release.
Completely aside from what you *call* a release - point release or not - is the issue of upgrade pricing. (ie, 'someone who owns the most recent "you gotta pay for this" release of Software X can get a discount when the next "you gotta pay for this" version comes out').
Apple's lack of upgrade pricing annoys me - not intrinsically; if they were adopting a "sure, go ahead and use X.1 for half a decade" stance, I'd probably be OK with it, but their patching policy is at odds with that stance (see comments above). Microsoft has released a "we will provide support and patches for Operating System N for X years" policy, where X is generally on the order of 3-5 years - Apple didn't support either 10.0 or 10.1 for even a third of that time.
More, though, the lack of upgrade pricing *baffles* me. Upgrade discounts - not even huge ones! - can dramatically raise the number of people who keep current with the most recent version of the OS, rather than just saying "Eh, what I have is good enough" - it creates an "if I buy now, I get a deal; if I wait, I may have to pay more" mentality. This increases sales volume, decreases the number of people out there with older versions of the OS (decreasing necessary support/maintenance for them, and allowing concentration of resources on the more recent version). Upgrade discounts also give a warm fuzzy feeling to people who are eligible for them, and make folks less likely to hold off on purchases - if you have to pay full-price for 10.3 even though you bought 10.2 the day before, you're much more likely to be very careful about when you buy things and to only buy exactly what you need/want.
They're trying, but they can't stoop as low as other computer vendors - I know Apple has a pretty high margin, but at the same time, their products are quality, and they last (I've bought three Macs, two of which are 3+ years old, and they still run flawlessly).
Apple does have high margins on its hardware, but it seems to me lately that they've been trying to make their software division produce more + more money - I have to wonder if they've been pushing that in case it became necessary to offer MacOS on x86-architecture machines. Darwin has been ported in-house at Apple, from what I hear.
If they ever *do* do that, their hardware profits will implode. They'll have the opportunity to gain market share as they never have before, though, as the OS decision would decouple from the hardware decision - one could now actually switch from Windows to MacOS *without buying a new computer*. Plus, the cheap x86 hardware would make the pricing much more attractive.
But unless/until that comes to pass, Apple's main source of revenue is hardware - which means they're losing -scads- of money every time they annoy an existing Mac user into upgrading to a new PC rather than a new Mac.
(I should note that I really do like the new G5 machines. The styling...eh. But the internal architecture...wow. And the speed boost is something Apple's been needing for years, now. My beef is purely with the upgrade pricing. Well, and some issues with the Finder, but 10.3 may fix those. *crosses fingers*.)
where I continue to ramble, part 1
I completely agree that this is a problem - since I believe Apache and such are the same across the different versions, I really think they should have security patches available (through Software Update) for customers usings those products. It's probably possible to patch them manually, but that shouldn't be necessary.
I think part of the issue here is that when Apple became a Unix OS provider, it started having to think about security more, and it hasn't really trickled down yet (there weren't really any security patches for 8-9 that I can think of).
On the other hand, I haven't run into anything for which I absolutely have to upgrade to 10.2. I'm not pretending to represent a large portion of Mac users, and I'm not running any server software at the moment, but I still haven't felt like I have to pay another $129 for my computer to work.
Apple's lack of upgrade pricing annoys me - not intrinsically; if they were adopting a "sure, go ahead and use X.1 for half a decade" stance, I'd probably be OK with it, but their patching policy is at odds with that stance (see comments above). Microsoft has released a "we will provide support and patches for Operating System N for X years" policy, where X is generally on the order of 3-5 years - Apple didn't support either 10.0 or 10.1 for even a third of that time.
Agreed again - I really think if Apple said that they would charge $129 for 10.3 full version and $99 for 10.3 upgrade version, then they'd still make money and make a lot of long-term users happier (even though it's really just a token gesture). I think this is another example of their marketing issues.
However [musing], I wonder how many people would end up buying the full version. It really depends on how many people out there are running an older version of the OS on a computer that can handle the new OS. Granted, I think my Blue & White G3 will probably be able to run 10.3, so I'm not sure about this point...but I'd guess that most computers that can be upgraded to some version of 10.x have been, and for the others, people are more likely to buy a new computer (which comes with the OS) than to try and put 10.3 on a 4+ year old machine. (I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong - I'm sure the statistics are out there somewhere.) So where do you have the upgrade pricing - is it only if you're going from 10.2 to 10.3, and you pay full price if you're going from 10.1 or before to 10.3? Do you have to have bought 10.2 within a certain amount of time in order to get the upgrade pricing, and if so, would you have to save your receipt for proof? Maybe they should only offer the upgrade pricing for the first month that an OS is released (to create demand) if you already own the previous version. Or maybe they should realize that if they offer upgrade pricing, they'll make $200 dollars from people buying 10.2 and 10.3 instead of $129 for people skipping 10.2 and just going to 10.3. [/musing]
Re: where I continue to ramble, part 1
(Though some companies - I think Adobe is one - offer a tiered upgrade system, where the more recent a version you own, the less you have to pay for the new one.)
Or maybe they should realize that if they offer upgrade pricing, they'll make $200 dollars from people buying 10.2 and 10.3 instead of $129 for people skipping 10.2 and just going to 10.3.
Exactly.
Hmm - thinking about it, they may be avoiding upgrade pricing for technical/logistical reasons - they may not have OS X to the point where they can make an install CD that would work for upgrades only, and I'm sure that dealing with the flood of receipts/manual pages/old CDs they'd get if they required proof of ownership would chew up time/money that they don't want to spend...but still...
where I continue to ramble, part 2
If they ever *do* do that, their hardware profits will implode. They'll have the opportunity to gain market share as they never have before, though, as the OS decision would decouple from the hardware decision - one could now actually switch from Windows to MacOS *without buying a new computer*. Plus, the cheap x86 hardware would make the pricing much more attractive.
I don't want Apple to move to x86 unless absolutely necessary, and with the new hardware coming out, I don't think it is (with the G4 issues, I was starting to wonder...). That's partially because I think it would hurt the stability of the machine. Right now, I can put in whatever hard drive I want, and use RAM from any seller, and attach pretty much any USB or Firewire peripheral I want, but the really important pieces are all standardized. Once you start having all different sorts of motherboards and controllers and such, things start getting much more complex.
Anyway, the only reason I started discussing the numbering scheme is because I had at least three people yesterday complain to me about how it's ridiculous to pay for a point release, without even knowing what new features are being added. I really think that subconsciously, most people would be less likely to have that sort of reaction if the next version were called 10.5 or 11 instead of 10.3. But I don't think the old numbering scheme (skipping point releases) would work very well right now, because the OS is changing at a pretty quick rate. I mean, the main difference I can recall between 8.1 and 8.5 were pretty aesthetic things like system sounds and theming - nothing on the order of Expose and dynamic user switching and many of the other features going into 10.3.
And just because I was curious and looked it up:
Windows 2000 Professional $319 Standard product
Windows 2000 Professional Product Upgrade $219 Upgrade from Windows 95 or Windows 98
Windows 2000 Professional Version Upgrade $149** Upgrade from Windows NT Workstation 4.0 or 3.51
Windows XP Professional Price* Order Online
from Microsoft
Upgrade
See if you qualify $199 U.S. Order
Full version $299 U.S. Order
Windows XP Home Edition Estimated Retail Price Order Online
from Microsoft
Upgrade
See if you qualify $99 U.S. Order
Full Version $199 U.S. Order
(qualifying - Windows 98 or Windows ME)
So the only real pricing competitor is Window XP Home in its upgrade version. You know, going on my respect for Microsoft's marketing genius, I really do wish that Apple provided a minor discount for upgrading users, just for the psychological effect. OS 10.x is cheaper / comparable to Windows, but still, current users complain that Apple doesn't care about them, and probably even $20 off would help stop the complaining.
I should note that I really do like the new G5 machines. The styling...eh.
I think the mesh will look better in person, and from reading more about it, the mesh actually is there for a purpose - it promotes airflow. It makes me feel better to know that it's functional rather than just aesthetic (and I thought the four vents on the last G4 were pretty ugly, actually).
no subject
You have no idea. It wasn't until 8.1/8.5 that Apple _ever_ charged for an update to the OS. Up to that point there wasn't really the notion that the OS was a separate product. It was something you bought with the computer and then had the right to freely update from there. It wasn't until the Internet really made it easy for anyone to download and install software that they started to charge for it, and rightly so. And there wasn't ever really an upgrade price. You paid for the upgrade. Apple doesn't release upgrades for the OS anymore, they release full versions. And the reason for this is how the software is done up, it's easier for them to release a full version, with all the files on the disc, than an updater. They can't update the OS itself unless booting off a CD, and at that point, you have to include an OS on the CD to boot from, might as well make it the full OS, and update from that, rather than a compressed set of updated files. Particularly when the OS is now hundreds of tiny files instead of dozens of files. They found this out the hard way. If you remember, they did release a 10.1 update CD, which people quickly figured out you could burn a copy of less one text file and it would be a full install CD.
That said, I agree that too many people are thinking of 10.3 as a minor upgrade over 10.2. People also thought the same of 10.2 despite it having major new functionality in the form of Quartz Extreme (which was never hyped enough, mostly because it left those with older hardware behind). I will gladly pony up the money for 10.3. Of course, I'll be getting it at the educational discount....
And in the end, I agree with your comments about the G5: drool inducing, but perhaps overkill for the average person. Nonetheless, this was all about being able to say they have the fastest computers, because there are always people who think that bigger is better, or faster is better. They're the same ones buying SUVs and sports cars.
*sigh* Now if they'd only update the 15" powerbook, _that_ I can see needs an update, and will likely make me open my wallet.
no subject
Good point about the 10.1 update CD - I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason they decided not to make any more upgrade CDs and just went with the full version. I still think it would be a nice gesture for them to have a pricing tier in between the educational (which not everyone can get) and the "I didn't buy 10.2" version (make it the same CD for all of them). I would think that they could somehow hook in their electronic registration system to the cash registers at the Apple Stores and the online Apple Store to verify eligibility. But then, all the resellers would be very upset about the loss of business, so there would have to be some other way to get the upgrade pricing...and then it gets messy. However, Apple is a large enough company and has done mail-in rebates and discounts before, so they should know how to do something like that.
no subject
There used to be a variety of methods to get the updates for free. Notably, new computers used to come with a small number of upgrade coupons that entitled the bearer to free OS upgrades for the first year/90 days/30 days/I forget which. Of course, many people reported major issues in getting them honored.
I think they should give you half off the new version at the Apple store if you bring in your original CDs for the previous version, but new equipment doesn't come with a full version, it comes with a system restore CD, so maybe you could show that for a 20% discount or something (half off would be too much, then you have the here--borrow my system CD phenomenon).
no subject
As long as Apple was the only one making Mac motherboards, etc., you'd still have all the advantages of a closed hardware platform (stability, etc), but by using x86 processors, Apple would be able to take advantage of the huge amount of money and smart people that those other guys are throwing at the processor design problem. Let's face it, they can spread out the development cost of a new processor over far more units sold than Apple or even IBM can. Apple could still maintain its edge in hardware and operating system ease-of-use, without having to risk embarassing performance gaps.
The main obstacle is that all Mac apps would have to be recompiled to the new instruction set, not to mention there would need to be some non-trivial changes to the OS. But if Apple's got Darwin running on x86 already, they are a large part of the way there.
Of course, with a closed hardware platform, all the Linux people salivating at the thought of being able to run OS X on their intel boxes would be disappointed, but oh well. :P
But if the G5 is really as awesome as it looks, Apple can hold of moving for at least a little while yet. ^_^ Which is very good, in my opinion. I'd be disappointed if they moved to x86, even maintaining the closed hardware, although I'd prefer that rather than see the end of Macs as serious computing machines. However, it's looking like we don't have to make that choice just yet - we can have a serious PowerPC Mac with the G5. Yay!
no subject
There are a number of people out there who want a Mac that can be built like a PC, and that's what I was addressing more - if the chip changes but the base hardware stays Apple-controlled (in that you couldn't run MacOS on a box you built yourself, even though Apple boxes were using x86 chips), then I don't really see that as a fundamental change for the Mac at all.
(Not related to your post at all, but I find it kind of amusing in a sad way that the same people who complained about the G4 and its lagging performance probably didn't even need the power it had. And for people who are saying that this is more power than needed - including me, a little - the OS is going to be enhanced to take advantage of what the G5 can do, and I think it's going to be very exciting.)