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
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).