Forums | MacLife

Even if the afterhours price jump holds, AAPL will still be around half of its 52-week high point of almost 190 in May 2008.

kman wrote:

I'm not really excited to see Apple succeed anymore, as more and more they are making computers that I don't want to buy.

I hear this sentiment a lot from the old Mac faithful.  It's pretty amusing to me that Apple had to move away from the wants and desires of the old Mac faithful to achieve this level of success.  Perhaps they were holding them back?

The number one factor is the halo effect.  In Apple's case, it's like the halo effect is stuck in a positive feedback loop.  The iPod increases the perceived value of the Mac.  But the Mac is what dominates the Apple Store aisles.  You get the impression that you're buying the Messiah of music players from a company that "overwhelmingly" specializes in computers.  Surely, Apple must be better in its specialty than its "hobby."  Thus the Mac is propelled to godlike status relative to the iPod, before you even touch it.  So now, without ever using a Mac, you go out and tell all your friends how awesome the Mac is.  Some of your friends who's previous computers were equipped with a 486DX2 think the iMac is a bargain, so they buy two.  Naturally they're impressed, so they march back to the Apple Store to buy iPods for their entire families.  Now, each of those family members go back to the Apple store, and the cycle continues.

Well, something like that...

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-01-21 9:56 pm)

kman wrote:

I think my biggest disappointment with Apple isn't the lack of a mid-range tower, or the removal of firewire, or the embarrassing specs on the mini and the air, or their reluctance to let go of the combo drives

IMHO a firewire port is more useful than a dvd burner.

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

I hear this sentiment a lot from the old Mac faithful.  It's pretty amusing to me that Apple had to move away from the wants and desires of the old Mac faithful to achieve this level of success.  Perhaps they were holding them back?

My first Mac was an SE in 1988 and I think their current lineup is the best group of computers they've ever produced. I bought a 17" MacBook Pro in 2007 and a new 13" MacBook for my wife last month. They are both incredible computers. A friend of mine that has been using Windows forever bought two MacBook Pros last year and he loves them. So this isn't a black and white issue. You can't lump people all into one group and say that they all have the same opinion or act the same based on such limited data (i.e. one guy's forum post )

The choice depends on the relative weights an individual assigns to form/dollar vs function/dollar.  Apple perhaps leads the industry in form, at the cost of function. For many old-skool Mac users, the move towards form is an unwelcome one, particularly with respect to desktops which are seldom seen in public.  Perhaps a false generalization on Kool Aid's part, but certainly one that holds true for "a lot" of the old Mac faithful.

And everyone knows the PowerBook Duo was the best laptop made, ever!!!

I haven't used desktop computers in years so Apple's current lineup meets both the form/dollar and function/dollar for my needs. Since you are speaking for "a lot" of the old Mac faithful based only on the people you know and extrapolating this out to the Mac buying public in general I think I will do the same. The overwhelming majority of people, whether old Mac faithful or those new to the Mac, are only interested in laptops anyway. Therefore it really doesn't matter much what Apple does with their desktop line.

And one last thing, perhaps you and I are thinking of two different things when we talk about old school. When I talk about old school I'm talking about the beginning of the Mac (e.g. the 512k, Plus, SE, SE/30, etc.) Form was a HUGE part of the Mac from the very beginning. This is not a new trend. The only time in the history of the Mac when form wasn't the most important thing was during the time when we had idiots running the company, idiots that almost ran the company into the ground. That's when they were trying to make computes that were more like PCs.

And I loved my Duo 230 with DuoDock    And it cost MORE than the current MacBook lineup BTW.

Last edited by frankly (2009-01-22 6:55 pm)

kman wrote:

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

kman wrote:

I'm not really excited to see Apple succeed anymore, as more and more they are making computers that I don't want to buy.

I hear this sentiment a lot from the old Mac faithful.  It's pretty amusing to me that Apple had to move away from the wants and desires of the old Mac faithful to achieve this level of success.  Perhaps they were holding them back?

It's possible.  For the life of me I can't understand why less function + less bang for your buck = more customers.  Apple's like that jerky abusive guy who gets all the girls.

I really think it's just a coincidence that Apple's taken off the last couple years.  We all knew Apple was a better computing experience long ago, but it took growing the brand through the iPod and the iPhone, coupled with the maturation of OS X to really make it happen.  I don't think the growth has much to do with the quality of the computers Apple has made recently at all.

I think my biggest disappointment with Apple isn't the lack of a mid-range tower, or the removal of firewire, or the embarrassing specs on the mini and the air, or their reluctance to let go of the combo drives - it's that they made the transition to Intel chips but completely failed to pass any of that savings on to the customers.  A mac is now almost completely made out of exactly the same parts as any PC, yet in most cases costs 2x as much.  And yet, people are buying more and more...

Mr. T nailed it with the Halo effect, but in regards to the "less function" that you perceive, when considered within the context of the halo effect, Macs provide a superior ability to integrate with the iPod, iPhone, music, photos, etc, easily.  While the usefulness for the function you may value has gone down, the utility to the mainstream user for these functions has skyrocketed.  In my mind, that IS the essence of the Halo effect.

frankly wrote:

Therefore it really doesn't matter much what Apple does with their desktop line.

I don't think that would fly at a board meeting.

And one last thing, perhaps you and I are thinking of two different things when we talk about old school. When I talk about old school I'm talking about the beginning of the Mac (e.g. the 512k, Plus, SE, SE/30, etc.) Form was a HUGE part of the Mac from the very beginning. This is not a new trend. The only time in the history of the Mac when form wasn't the most important thing was during the time when we had idiots running the company, idiots that almost ran the company into the ground. That's when they were trying to make computes that were more like PCs.

Revisionist history. The idiots running Apple were doing well 'till around the mid-90's, selling computers that were similar in form to those their competitors were selling.  Those idiot competitors, meanwhile, flew right past Apple in the market. And their PC's were especially PC-like.

Apple's actual problem during the "troubled years" was an increasingly pervasive "silo effect" within the company, which stifled innovation, and lead to dizzying array of half-assed computers, printers, cameras, wristwatches, and other useless crap.  Meanwhile, MOST of the major projects burned money like a crack whore, and never saw the light of day.  Then there were the clones, which increased Mac-compatible market share, at tremendous cost to Apple.  Then came Windows 95, which Apple was not at all prepared for.  Again, it goes back to the lack of focus and cooperation within the company.  I remember reading an article explaining that Apple was spending something like ten times what Microsoft was spending on OS development, and failed to deliver a product.

And I loved my Duo 230 with DuoDock    And it cost MORE than the current MacBook lineup BTW.

I guess what I meant to say is that the Duo was more revolutionary at the time, than the MacBook is now.  The unibody made the MacBook slightly thinner, but the Duo (I guess I should say, 100) was a totally new machine.

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Therefore it really doesn't matter much what Apple does with their desktop line.

I don't think that would fly at a board meeting.

And one last thing, perhaps you and I are thinking of two different things when we talk about old school. When I talk about old school I'm talking about the beginning of the Mac (e.g. the 512k, Plus, SE, SE/30, etc.) Form was a HUGE part of the Mac from the very beginning. This is not a new trend. The only time in the history of the Mac when form wasn't the most important thing was during the time when we had idiots running the company, idiots that almost ran the company into the ground. That's when they were trying to make computes that were more like PCs.

Revisionist history. The idiots running Apple were doing well 'till around the mid-90's, selling computers that were similar in form to those their competitors were selling.  Those idiot competitors, meanwhile, flew right past Apple in the market. And their PC's were especially PC-like.

Apple's actual problem during the "troubled years" was an increasingly pervasive "silo effect" within the company, which stifled innovation, and lead to dizzying array of half-assed computers, printers, cameras, wristwatches, and other useless crap.  Meanwhile, MOST of the major projects burned money like a crack whore, and never saw the light of day.  Then there were the clones, which increased Mac-compatible market share, at tremendous cost to Apple.  Then came Windows 95, which Apple was not at all prepared for.  Again, it goes back to the lack of focus and cooperation within the company.  I remember reading an article explaining that Apple was spending something like ten times what Microsoft was spending on OS development, and failed to deliver a product.

And I loved my Duo 230 with DuoDock    And it cost MORE than the current MacBook lineup BTW.

I guess what I meant to say is that the Duo was more revolutionary at the time, than the MacBook is now.  The unibody made the MacBook slightly thinner, but the Duo (I guess I should say, 100) was a totally new machine.

My statement had NOTHING to do with a board meeting or what Apple should or should not do. I was completely exaggerating a stance based on limited evidence to make a point. You obviously missed the point, which I guess is why you say things like, "Perhaps a false generalization on Kool Aid's part, but certainly one that holds true for "a lot" of the old Mac faithful."

Everything you cited above can be boiled down to a lack of focus. And yet the extreme focus that Apple has had under during this renaissance which has led to their tremendous success you think is wrong. You think YOU know better what their customers want, even though they've never had this many customers in any year of their existence. So, whatever.

Tim Cook's view of Apple: http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/22/tim … hilosophy/

Tim Cook wrote:

There is an extraordinary breadth and depth and tenure among the Apple executive team, and these executives lead over 35,000 employees that I would call "all wicked smart". And that's in all areas of the company, from engineering to marketing to operations and sales and all the rest. And the values of our company are extremely well entrenched.

We believe that we're on the face of the Earth to make great products, and that's not changing. We're constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.

We believe in saying no to thousands of projects so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot.

And frankly, we don't settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self-honesty to admit when we're wrong and the courage to change. And I think, regardless of who is in what job, those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.

I'm pretty sure that's as plain a statement as you will see from an Apple executive regarding the mid-tower than some in these forums (and in this post) have been clamoring for.

Bat wrote:

I'm pretty sure that was posted recently, perhaps even by me. Stay away for awhile, miss a few things.

So will you or KAG be first to post 'Yet another fantastic quarter for AAPL'?

(And more than a few reviews of the iPhone I read were less than ecstatic, re: a previous post).

Actually I believe it was a record quarter for Apple.

Seriously, less than ecstatic reviews??? Seriously? Did you happen to read the reviews for the Blackberry Storm? How do those "less than ecstatic" reviews look compared to those?

Frank

Bat wrote:

Yes, it actually was a record quarter. I very much doubt it can continue, but they bucked the trend for a few months.

Let's add you to the list of everyone else that has been saying that every quarter. It's quite obvious that what you and the other doubters think here is irrelevant. Perhaps you should reading www.daringfireball.net where John Gruber keeps track of the idiots in the press that spout off stuff like this only to print their quotes many months later when we get to the point where they said something Apple was doing was doomed to fail.

They had a record smurfing quarter when other companies are either losing their shirts, laying off workers, or going completely out of business (I'm looking at you 60 year old Circuit City). When will people realize that they are doing thing right? Doubters are starting to look looney at this point.

Frank

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

Yes, it actually was a record quarter. I very much doubt it can continue, but they bucked the trend for a few months.

Let's add you to the list of everyone else that has been saying that every quarter. It's quite obvious that what you and the other doubters think here is irrelevant. Perhaps you should reading www.daringfireball.net where John Gruber keeps track of the idiots in the press that spout off stuff like this only to print their quotes many months later when we get to the point where they said something Apple was doing was doomed to fail.

They had a record smurfing quarter when other companies are either losing their shirts, laying off workers, or going completely out of business (I'm looking at you 60 year old Circuit City). When will people realize that they are doing thing right? Doubters are starting to look looney at this point.

Frank

So we really are back to the 'frankly & [ghost of] Czach wars? I suppose I'm also on the list of "Apple doubters who've ruined this forum..." in which case no reorg should be needed; we 'doubters' ruined things, and the Great Debate ahould draw beaucoups spectator traffic.

For my part, I think you in an excess of pro-Apple zeal failed to note my prediction has nothing to do with Apple's direction or product line, but rather with the massive global economic downturn. No far-flung, many-faceted corporation is escaping that... even companies like Wal-Mart, whose low prices people turn to money is tight, are immune, while higher-end retailers like Neiman-Marcus have been massively affected. It's been noticed AAPL's stock price is half what it was at its peak, Steve himself is on medical leave of absence for 1H '09, Apple's new principal supplier of LCDs LG is hard-hit, #2 RAM-maker Quimonda has filed for bankruptcy, and even mighty Apple supplier Intel is shuttering plants and laying off personnel.

To counter you offer one man's opinion at one website. Let John Gruber track us both; history in its minor way will judge our lunacy. (And likening me to an idiot is skirting dangerous ground, I suspect). Chill.