The articles are, for the most part, refreshingly positive, and good news of recent upticks in Apple's market share in categories like education and government should confuse the naysayers.

Not sensational or full o' fud either...amazing... YAY!
(Let us cherish these rare journalistic gifts....)

-Ken P

Wow, a mainstream business publication actually saying nice things about Apple? Someone should have a talk with them. I bet they'd get 10 times the number of hits and magazine sales if they predicted the eventual demise of Apple, as so many have done in the past.

Seriously, now that the effects of the past bozo CEOs have been more or less negated, it looks like Apple is definitely on the path to continued success.

Wake up, you're under the influence of the RDF. Let's check the facts:
- Mac market share at all time low
- Consumer line: Apple has suspended iMac production
- Pro line: Apple can't get G5 chips to meet promised ship dates
- Mac prices at all time high

Everything is pointing to a real Mac sales fiasco this quarter. You heard it here first.

Let's check the real facts:

"- Mac market share at all time low"
- somebody hasn't read the articles touting the larger mindshare Apple has gotten of late. Recent news in mainstream press shows that Apple is second only to Dell in brand recognition and type of computer consumers will purchase. Sales are back on an increase and this trend will reverse. Besides the fact that market share doesn't seem to affect the impact Apple has on the PC world. Your statement is sort and pithy but doesn't account for the subtleties involved with Mac market share -- so it's a b.s. arguement.

"- Consumer line: Apple has suspended iMac production"
- Production will begin again this fall when the G5 chip is ramped up in production, which is IBM's fault and not Apple's. Because Apple are waiting for the G5 chips, we know the next iMac/consumer model will have G5 processors, even, which is a step up from the current consumer line. In the meantime, there are plenty of systems in the pipeline for sale. Stating only half of the truth in order to suggest production has ended completely is b.s.

"- Pro line: Apple can't get G5 chips to meet promised ship dates"
- Again, IBM's fault; not Apple's. Of course, the interesting thing here is that means demand is far outstripping supply, which means either IBM severely underestimated or sales have been extremely robust. Either way, sales are good, and your take is b.s.

"- Mac prices at all time high"
- the eMac is $799; $999 with a superdrive. This is the lowest price ever for a Mac capable of making full use of the iLife packages it has installed for free, incuding making movies and burning DVDs and making use of the critically-acclaimed GarageBand. If you know how and where to shop, you can get great bargains on refurbs, open-box and others, too. I know people who spend more on their PC gaming rig than I'd ever spend for any Mac. Your argument is outdated, not inline with today's prices, and pure b.s.

Hey, did I mention you're completely full of b.s.?

To the post above:

1. You're thing about market share is on. Additionally, PCs score big when bought in huge freaking loads by massive corporations. And again, a small market share doesn't mean Apple is crapping out, that's not their plan or area. Dell is on the other end of the spectrum from leading edge, but sells lots of computers. Apple chooses not to follow this path.

2. I disagree with your logic on blaming everything on IBM. True it's IBM's fault that G5s are slow to come out, but you still have to blame Apple for this. Why? Well, after all, they are a business and have to be carefull and do research on business partners and suppliers and all that jazz. So to put it all on IBM is misleading because Apple teamed up with them, subjecting their customers to possible limiting production constraints of computers, namely IBM's ability to make G5 chips.

"I disagree with your logic on blaming everything on IBM. True it's IBM's fault that G5s are slow to come out, but you still have to blame Apple for this."

I don't agree because IBM promised Apple they'd be able to keep up the supply. They aren't living up to their part of the bargain, and that is not Apple's fault. What IS Apple's fault is whether Apple is doing anything to fix the problem, which may be impossible due to the fact Motorola is done with producing these types of processors now. And, even if so, we don't know at this moment what Apple is doing behind the scenes to remedy the situation. This is the first production snafu with the G5s, so it isn't exactly right to leap to the conclusion Apple is doing nothing righ tnow. Should another iteration of G5 systems come and go like this, then Apple can take on some blame.

My take is since they've already essentially promised G5 iMacs in the fall during their recent earnings conference, then Apple knows something we don't about how IBM is going to remedy this situation. Otherwise, there is no way in hell they'd have enough G5 processors for both the Pro and Consumer lines. If Apple can't deliver even G5 Powermacs come fall, then best to get those letters off to Apple to pull their heads out. Until then, it's IBM's fault.

You made valid points, Dean, but trolls won't eat facts, so don't waste time trying to feed any to them. They only survive through attention, and at TMO we learned that it's better to starve them out by ignoring them!

-Ken P

Intel is having major problems in producing their high end chips, probably worse than IBM. At least IBM is delivering G5 chips for the PowerMac and XServe. Would have been nice if the iMac could have been introduced in June, but I'm VERY happy to wait for a G5 iMac - far better than a Dull that will crap all over me in 2 years, like the 2 year old office Dull has done.

Also interesting to note that MS has pushed back their new 64 bit Windows OS until next year, leaving Apple with the OS that accommodates 64 bit chips as well as 32 bit chips. That's not even counting Longhorn that is somewhere in Never Never Land.

Apple is the only computer company out there that is sitting on a new product (G5 iMac) that could have a waiting list within a month or so of introduction AND another hot product (iPod mini) that has had a waiting list since it was introduced. Actually, a French site has also listed the Airport Express as having a 2 - 4 week waiting list as well.

Christmas shopping advise or Mac lovers: order the iPod or iPod mini now if you want it for Christmas - there is going to be chaos this season. ORder the iMac the first few days after it's release if you don't want to wait a while on the backorder list. Apple is going to be the hot company this Christmas.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Wake up, you're under the influence of the RDF. Let's check the facts:
- Mac market share at all time low
- Consumer line: Apple has suspended iMac production
- Pro line: Apple can't get G5 chips to meet promised ship dates
- Mac prices at all time high

Everything is pointing to a real Mac sales fiasco this quarter. You heard it here first.

Actually, no.

Cash is at an all-time high.
Debt is at an all-time low.
Apple's share in its primary market is at a multi-year high.
Apple's share of the no-margin, sub $700 market is at a low.
Apple has suspended manufacturing of G4 iMacs
Apple is transistioning manufacturing for the G5 iMac.
Apple can't get enough G5 chips to meet demand.
Mac prices are not at an all-time high. As a matter of fact the eMac is at a price point well below the cost of a Mac 10 years ago.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
<snip>

Everything is pointing to a real Mac sales fiasco this quarter. You heard it here first.

Everybody knows that you can only get quality Mac market analysis from someone who hides behind a pseudonym.

I'll feed the troll on this one point: Apple's laptop prices are at an all-time low, as is Apple's consumer desktop pricing. Apple's pro line is priced the same as it has been for years, which is cheaper than it a few years before that.

You are a loser, RC, a very sad and pathetic loser.

The G5 costs more than the G4 or G3 in years past. While PC prices have been falling, MAC prices have been rising.

The starting price for a G5 is $1999 and that's with inadequate 256MB RAM and a lame 64MB graphics card. Put in only 1G RAM, decent 256MB graphics, and AppleCare, the price zooms to a ridiculous $2823 before tax. Over $2800 for only a 1.8GHz G5 is outrageous. Conclusion if you want a decent headless Mac you're going to come up with almost $3000, a new Mac record.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
The G5 costs more than the G4 or G3 in years past. While PC prices have been falling, MAC prices have been rising.

The starting price for a G5 is $1999 and that's with inadequate 256MB RAM and a lame 64MB graphics card. Put in only 1G RAM, decent 256MB graphics, and AppleCare, the price zooms to a ridiculous $2823 before tax. Over $2800 for only a 1.8GHz G5 is outrageous. Conclusion if you want a decent headless Mac you're going to come up with almost $3000, a new Mac record.

Actually, the G3 iMac debuted at $1,299.00.

The G4 iMac debuted at a similar price.

A G4 eMac can be found on the Apple site for $799.00.

I remember paying over $2,500 for a Mac Plus. Actually, well over $3,000.00 for a MacPlus and dot matrix printer plus tax in 1987. AppleCare wasn't available at that time.

The original Mac debuted in 1984 at about $2,500.00.

According to Dan Knight's system profiles on lowendmac.com, the headless the Macintosh IIci debuted in late 1989 at $6,600.00 or $8,700.00 for a IIci with 40 megbyte hard drive.

The first headless Mac, the Mac II, debuted in 1987 at $3,900.00 or $5,500.00 with a 40 megabyte hard drive.

The first G3 tower (266 MHz) debuted at $2,999.00 in 1997, in desktop form the first G3 (233 MHz) debuted at $1,999.00.

The list goes on and on. The G5 is certainly not the most expensive Mac ever or on record.

Funny thing is that every desktop Apple or Apple compatible product that I've owned, from an Apple //e to a Mac ][ci to a Power 100 to a PowerCenter Pro 210 to a G4 to my current baby, a dual 2 GHz G5, have always run me about $3K. My strategy, except for the G5, would be to get a machine near, but not at, the top of the line, and to NOT get enhancements like RAM and HD from Apple.

The nice thing is that each subsequent machine had more features than the last. So if anything, the bang per buck has increased as time moves on.

On the PC side, all I can say is that my work PC, a Dell Precision M60 with enough juice to do development work, would have gone for $5K without our corporate discount. With the discount, it was about $3600.

Apple makes the iPod. The iPod is about to do something that only happens about once a decade. It is beginning to blur the line between product and clutural icon. I'd say Apple is doing just fine.

DawnTreader pointed out that Macintosh IIci debuted in late 1989 at $6,600.00, now we know why Mac market share collapsed.

OK the G5 isn't the most overpriced Mac ever, but during the last upgrade Apple phased out the Power Mac G4 and raised the base price for cheapest Power Mac G5 to $1999.

For consumers looking for an upgradeable headless Mac, prices now start at $1999 for a 1.8GHz G5 which is totally out of touch. PC prices start at $499 for a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. By raising prices Apple ensures continued market share decline.

You should take the time to read the referenced Business Week articles. Apple's market share in key verticals has increased as of late.

And that $499 machine? Get back to us when you have to replace it in 3 years, or when it breaks. Macs are proven to have a longer usable lifespan, and the highest quality in the industry. You get what you pay for.

Thanks for playing, though. Better luck next time.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:


For consumers looking for an upgradeable headless Mac, prices now start at $1999 for a 1.8GHz G5 which is totally out of touch. PC prices start at $499 for a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. By raising prices Apple ensures continued market share decline.

RC, the G5 minitower is not a consumer machine. I buy lots of PCs each year in a commercial environment. At $499, regardless of the processor, a buyer gets commodity components, second-rate board design and really poor performance.

Pricing out PCs for a commercial environment I'm finding starting prices at about $1,500.00 for anything adequate.

Even a 2.8 GHz Pentium box on any kind of Win 2K or XP network loses signifianct performance as the background operations chew up processor cycles and the network overhead eats away at operations. Component quality and durability is at least as important as the theoretical processor speed.

The eMac at $799.00 is Apple's entry level consumer computer and IMHO holds its own on features, price and performance versus the competition.

Putting a $499.00 desktop in a commercial environment is foolish. It will cause not only a reduction of productivity as the user's work is slowed to a crawl, it will mosty likely need to be replaced within 15 months if it doesn't fail within that period due to component issues.

Employee time is worth far more than the cost of the PC they use. A business manager who buys $499.00 PCs for an office isn't thinking long-term and is wasting valuable employee time with low productivity equipment.

"Debt is at an all-time low."

Not to nitpick, but I suppose debt-free would be an all-time low! : )