[Leia's Left Bun]

"Apple's decision to unleash Intel-based Mac systems six months ahead of schedule is proving less successful than the company anticipated. Two weeks following the Macworld Expo San Francisco keynote, sources report that sales of the Intel-based iMac are lower than Apple expected, even taking into account the seasonal post-holiday sales dip, suggesting the 2006 transition to Intel may be more difficult than the company has expressed."

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0601intelearly.html

[:.MacLone.:]

Do Disk warrior works on intel macs? Anything beside native apps work well? noup?... I think it's better to wait... and they knew that.

[Leia's Left Bun]

I had 3 people express interest in the Intel Mac's and I told them to wait to see what real world was as I knew those stupid Benchmarks Steve was spewing out were total bullshit.

Same goes for the MacBooks, it is scary that they are less than a month away and Apple had to fake the product photography of them and hadn't even done testing on the Battery life.

This also reminds me of when they launched PowerPC in more ways than one.

First, just about everything was emulated and wasn't much faster at all. We had to wait for OSX for a good amount of PowerPC code.

Second, when they launched PowerPC they stuck it in the same boring cases as the older chips and just wrote PowerPC on the front. Apple later admitted this was a mistake.

Now I am not saying the iMac needs a redesign but they shouldn't have slimmed down the iMac G5 there a few months ago, they should have waited till the Intels came out.

Secondly, the Powerbooks could definitely use some sort of carbon materials over metallic. The iBook could use a major cosmetic overhaul.

[JHromadka]

As soon as emulation and dual-booting work, sales will skyrocket.

[willed]

Are they promoting them at Apple stores? It seems that they may be trying to surreptitiously get rid of iMac G5s before promoting the Mactels... Then again, I may be wrong.

[mindwaves]

iWork Not Selling: Numbers To The Rescue

Apple's iWork emerges as rival to Microsoft Office

Always trust what you read with a grain of salt.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Same goes for the MacBooks, it is scary that they are less than a month away and Apple had to fake the product photography of them and hadn't even done testing on the Battery life.

AFAIK, all Mac product shots of recent times are rendered, not photographs.

P.S. They've definitely tested the battery life. However, it's quite possible the battery life is quite mediocre, and they don't want to advertise that.

[Kerrigan]

One thing we'd probably all agree on is that Apple doesn't do a good job advertising Macs. Once in a blue moon they will come out with a commercial for the Mac, and the commercials rarely show what the Mac platform has to offer or why we should buy it.

Admittedly this latest ad is a huge improvement from the Jeff Goldblum days. However, saying that "the intel chip has been set free to live life in a Mac" or whatever, means nothing to the average customer.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

AFAIK, all Mac product shots of recent times are rendered, not photographs.

They look all like photographs to me.

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

AFAIK, all Mac product shots of recent times are rendered, not photographs.

Ya but they didn't even create a new RENDER, they used the old powerbook render and photoshoped on the IR port, you can tell because they forgot the port on the reflection (they since fixed it).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

One thing we'd probably all agree on is that Apple doesn't do a good job advertising Macs. Once in a blue moon they will come out with a commercial for the Mac, and the commercials rarely show what the Mac platform has to offer or why we should buy it.

Admittedly this latest ad is a huge improvement from the Jeff Goldblum days. However, saying that "the intel chip has been set free to live life in a Mac" or whatever, means nothing to the average customer.

Effective advertising ≠ informative.

The silhouette ads are a prime example. They say absolutely nothing, except that if you wear an iPod, you will lose all recognizable facial features and will turn into a dancing maniac.

[NYCFarmboy]

I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade........my "old" dual 1.42 G4 tower, and 1.3 G4 Powerbook do everything I need them to do.

[NYCFarmboy]

I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade........my "old" dual 1.42 G4 tower, and 1.3 G4 Powerbook do everything I need them to do.

[Kerrigan]

Alright. I know I'm going to get flamed for this but here goes. When was the last time you saw a company advertising a desktop PC in the same way that Apple has? Dell shows the product in a normal environment (ie on a desk), they tell you what you can do on it, and they list the price/specs. Gateway does the same (admittedly their sales are not very good).

I'm not suggesting that Apple should adopt a Dell style advertising scheme, but Apple really ought to consider doing a commercial where people can get an idea of what the Mac actually is and what it would look like in their home. The current iMac advert has such a sterile feel to it that when the iMac makes its short 4 second appearance at the end, most people may have trouble telling just what it is. Is it a flat panel display? A TV? The uninitiated might not even know that it's a computer.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Ya but they didn't even create a new RENDER, they used the old powerbook render and photoshoped on the IR port, you can tell because they forgot the port on the reflection (they since fixed it).

Why should they have re-rendered the MacBook when it looks almost completely identical to the powerbook? The only thing different looks wise on the MacBook are the different ports.

[Salty]

Of course sales aren't going to be phenominal, they just released new ones three months ago! Not to mention, the fact that, frankly the market for these at this point is terribly small! I mean really who would buy one of these? Sure Rosetta's fine, but I don't plan on running Photoshop at the same speed as my current PowerBook but still buying a new one, that's insane. The only people who have good reason to buy these are people just getting into the Mac who don't have any software yet, and those who only use iLife and iWork and the OS X bundled apps. Anyone who does Video editing won't be buying these just yet, anyone who does audio work, desktop publishing, web design, and so on and so forth will also not be buying these.
None of the major platform apps are out in Universal Binaries just yet, and it's going to be a while yet before they are. By september I'll probably have an Intel Mac, but not right now.

[CharlesS]

Maybe people are pissed off because the Intel Macs chop the Mac's backward compatibility from 22 years down to only 5. Maybe if Apple would integrate the PowerPC emulation from SheepShaver into Classic, it would win over more users (especially educational customers). Sure, they'd have to GPL Classic (note: not OS 9, just the Classic environment itself) if they did this, but under the current plan it'll be effectively killed off anyway when PowerPC eventually becomes no longer supported by OS X, so who cares?

[Leia's Left Bun]

There isn't anything "wrong" with the Intel iMacs per say. The problem is more the software which isn't optimized. 8 months from now I am sure they will be selling like hotcakes.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

There isn't anything "wrong" with the Intel iMacs per say. The problem is more the software which isn't optimized. 8 months from now I am sure they will be selling like hotcakes.

Yeah, I'll probaby buy an Intel Mac sometime within the next year. Possibly even two, but it really depends on the state of the available software.

P.S. I'm telling a friend to get an Intel iMac for his parents, cuz all they do online is surf and play online games anyway. However, for my other friends interested in Macs, I've told them that if they can wait a few months it might be prudent to do so. Actually, even for that iMac for my friend's parents, I wonder about Skype, because he wants them to use Skype. (He lives overseas, so long distance charges are high.)

[Leia's Left Bun]

I think Apples 3-4 times faster bullshit does more harm than good. Sure the fanboys yell in joy at the keynote and email all their friends but the second they use one it is another story.

I would have been more impressed if Steve said 25% faster and it was true.

Anyone else think it is kinda pitiful that it takes TWO 1.8 GHz Intel chips to really take on a single G5?

[Eug Wanker]

Actually, strangely enough a 1.8 GHz Core Duo is twice as fast as a single G5, and 4 times as fast a G4 in some stuff. Apple's benchmarks are perfectly justifiable.

Unfortunately, much of the software isn't optimized to take advantage of that. ie. If you're going to need that sort of speed optimization, often times you're going to want a Power Mac anyway.

In other words, for most stuff that grandma is going to be using, the benchmarks are not representative. OTOH, Safari rending is apparently very fast on the Intel Macs, which means that surfing is gonna feel faster for a lot of people.

[Fred_Cokebottle]

Beginning of the end for iMac's?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I think Apples 3-4 times faster bullshit does more harm than good. Sure the fanboys yell in joy at the keynote and email all their friends but the second they use one it is another story.

I would have been more impressed if Steve said 25% faster and it was true.

Anyone else think it is kinda pitiful that it takes TWO 1.8 GHz Intel chips to really take on a single G5?

I dunno, I kinda figured that the dual-coreness was where they got that "twice as fast" stuff. A single core of the Yonah definitely isn't twice as fast as a G5.

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

Beginning of the end for iMac's?

Beginning of the end for iMac's what?

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Actually, strangely enough a 1.8 GHz Core Duo is twice as fast as a single G5

I would hope so considering it is TWO chips against one.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I would hope so considering it is TWO chips against one.

So it's not inaccurate to claim that, is it?

[greenamp]

I think the iMac will get thinner as time goes on. I don't see the need really to change it's design. Even though it's a couple years old now it is still on the edge of innovations design wise compared to everything else out there. Same goes for the Power Mac tower.

Even still when I see an iMac or G5 Power Mac I stop for a second to appreciate how great of a design they are and I've seen them a million times. How many computers out there can also serve as the focal point of the design of your work space?

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So it's not inaccurate to claim that, is it?

I don't see how real world 25% speed increase is twice as fast and 10 - 50% slower on emulated.

[AppleCello]

People keep talking about "apple's bogus performance claims." If any of you had listend to Jobs during the keynote, he specifically pointed out that they were referring to very limited benchmarking tests and that real world performance was much less due to things like disk access and overall architecture... its just a pretty number to put on product litterature, get over it. they are faster.

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by AppleCello

People keep talking about "apple's bogus performance claims." If any of you had listend to Jobs during the keynote, he specifically pointed out that they were referring to very limited benchmarking tests and that real world performance was much less due to things like disk access and overall architecture... its just a pretty number to put on product litterature, get over it. they are faster.

yes we are fully aware that Steve Spewed out some silly benchmarking app results. That is the whole point. Why bother if they are not real world.

[Chuckit]

It's hard to say what "real world" performance is because the real world is such a variable place. For instance, if your real world involves using Handbrake a lot, the new iMacs will make the old ones look downright paraplegic.

[OldManMac]

It's interesting to see people extrapolate all manner and kind of problems for Apple, based on an article on ThinkSecret. I could just as well saying they're selling like crazy, because our store has already sold six of them, and we've only had them a week, but I won't, because that's not an accurate analyses, just an anecdotal extrapolation, which ThinkSecret's "sources" no doubt use as well. The only people who know are those at Apple, and they won't release numbers for some time. Carry on.

[brink]

I think there are too many potential issues with the Intel Macs right now to make them really attractive. They're bound to have even more than the usual rev. a hardware glitches. Tiger will be buggier on Intel than PPC for a while. Most software won't run natively and a not insignificant amount of older software won't run at all. The first wave of universal binaries will likely be somewhat crashier than their predecessors. Etc.

For me there's also a psychological factor. I was just starting to feel like everything in the Mac universe had finally righted itself again after all the various headaches that came with the transition to OS X. The last thing I'm in the mood for right now is yet another transition. I realize it's minor compared to the move to PPC or to OS X, but I'm really starting to suffer from transition fatigue.

That said, I might be persuaded to throw caution to the wind for a cheapish Mactel mini or iBooktel. But I wouldn't even consider investing four figures in an Intel Mac for at least another year.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by brink

Tiger will be buggier on Intel than PPC for a while.

No, it won't.

Mac OS X has been developed for Intel ever since it started, and it has the same 5 years of development that OS X has on PPC.

Stop spreading FUD.

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's hard to say what "real world" performance is because the real world is such a variable place. For instance, if your real world involves using Handbrake a lot, the new iMacs will make the old ones look downright paraplegic.

A good place to start would be the most popular app iTunes along with iLife 06 that comes with all the new Macs.

For once Steve ignored Photoshop benchmarks, wonder why

[Hash]

since when ThinkSecret can be trusted as a source of reliable info? Their fiasco with Macworld?

[Hash]

Originally Posted by brink

I think there are too many potential issues with the Intel Macs right now to make them really attractive. They're bound to have even more than the usual rev. a hardware glitches. Tiger will be buggier on Intel than PPC for a while. Most software won't run natively and a not insignificant amount of older software won't run at all. The first wave of universal binaries will likely be somewhat crashier than their predecessors. Etc.

For me there's also a psychological factor. I was just starting to feel like everything in the Mac universe had finally righted itself again after all the various headaches that came with the transition to OS X. The last thing I'm in the mood for right now is yet another transition. I realize it's minor compared to the move to PPC or to OS X, but I'm really starting to suffer from transition fatigue.

That said, I might be persuaded to throw caution to the wind for a cheapish Mactel mini or iBooktel. But I wouldn't even consider investing four figures in an Intel Mac for at least another year.

buy mini, it has G4, be happy

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So it's not inaccurate to claim that, is it?

Well, yeah it is. Because otherwise Apple could have said "Look, we have 1 GHz machines" back in the day when they were stuck with dual-processor 500 MHz G4s.

Two processors make things better, for sure. But dual processors don't mean twice the performance unless something is really optimized for them.

[brink]

Originally Posted by Person Man

No, it won't.

Mac OS X has been developed for Intel ever since it started, and it has the same 5 years of development that OS X has on PPC.

Stop spreading FUD.

Yeah, it will. Check out Apple's developer lists, where issues with Tiger on Intel are already being reported. The Intel builds of the OS may have been in development as long as the PPC builds, but they haven't received even remotely the same degree of real-world testing.

[piot]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I could just as well saying they're selling like crazy, because our store has already sold six of them, and we've only had them a week, but I won't, because that's not an accurate analyses, just an anecdotal extrapolation, which ThinkSecret's "sources" no doubt use as well.

Agreed. More anecdotal evidence of good sales would be Amazon (iMac 2nd in desktop bestsellers list. MacBook Pro 3rd in laptop bestsellers), and the Apple Store bestsellers page, where both models are in amoung Nano Tubes and iTunes Gift tokens.

Think Secret seem to have taken a course in EnderleSpeak.

"sources report that sales of the Intel-based iMac are lower than Apple expected"
"It's that very performance claim that sources say is negatively impacting sales of the new system"
"Sources report that many prominent software developers have expressed their displeasure over the move(to release Intel Macs early) to Apple management

[demibob]

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/01/24/1537231.shtml

great
apple gets the most flawed chip intel ever made

[Jeepguy01]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

"Apple's decision to unleash Intel-based Mac systems six months ahead of schedule is proving less successful than the company anticipated. Two weeks following the Macworld Expo San Francisco keynote, sources report that sales of the Intel-based iMac are lower than Apple expected, even taking into account the seasonal post-holiday sales dip, suggesting the 2006 transition to Intel may be more difficult than the company has expressed."

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0601intelearly.html

What do they expect? They introduced THREE new iMacs in the same year. I think they've sapped the market dry for a little while.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

yes we are fully aware that Steve Spewed out some silly benchmarking app results. That is the whole point. Why bother if they are not real world.

That's just the point, they are real world, but only with specific apps. For example, Cinema 4D renders twice as quickly with dual processors, and Cinema 4D is a real world app. It's just not a real-world app that grandma runs.

iMovie may not run twice as fast, but that's because iMovie isn't optimized for it. That's Apple's fault, not some deficiency of the CPU.

What you're arguing is the age-old argument about dual-CPU versus single-CPU machines. ie. Dual Power Mac G5 vs iMac G5. In some apps a dual Power Mac blows away an iMac G5. In some, not so much.

Think of it this way... As of January 2006, an iMac is as fast as a dual Power Mac for native applications, costs less, and comes with a free screen.

[baw]

Originally Posted by brink

Yeah, it will. Check out Apple's developer lists, where issues with Tiger on Intel are already being reported.

I hope you didn't expect there to be no issues.

[rozwado1]

Originally Posted by willed

Are they promoting them at Apple stores? It seems that they may be trying to surreptitiously get rid of iMac G5s before promoting the Mactels... Then again, I may be wrong.

Just got back from the apple store in orlando, where i saw numerous sales associates telling people not to buy powerbooks bc the macbook is coming out, etc. They actually turned down a sale of a Powermac G5 bc the sales associate said that faster ones are coming out in june. The customer really needed a pc asap and the salesman turned him down.

I didn't think that was good for business.

[PurpleGiant]

While both models (G5 and Intel) are available, sales on both will be sluggish.

Once Rev2 is out, and I assume Apple will drop the iMac G5 (or make it significantly less visible in the store), sales will be booming. IMO.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I think Apples 3-4 times faster bullshit does more harm than good. Sure the fanboys yell in joy at the keynote and email all their friends but the second they use one it is another story.

I would have been more impressed if Steve said 25% faster and it was true.

Anyone else think it is kinda pitiful that it takes TWO 1.8 GHz Intel chips to really take on a single G5?

I love how you talk in absolutes... it's unfortunate you can't hear yourself sounding like a rude idiot.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

yes we are fully aware that Steve Spewed out some silly benchmarking app results. That is the whole point. Why bother if they are not real world.

Because he was illustrating how much faster this chip is.

Marketing 101

[analogika]

I'm sure we'd sell more if we actually HAD them.

Which we don't.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by rozwado1

Just got back from the apple store in orlando, where i saw numerous sales associates telling people not to buy powerbooks bc the macbook is coming out, etc. They actually turned down a sale of a Powermac G5 bc the sales associate said that faster ones are coming out in june. The customer really needed a pc asap and the salesman turned him down.

I didn't think that was good for business.

Turned him down? as in:

"Hi, I'd like to buy that there computer."

"No, you can't. I won't sell it to you, go away."

??

I'd advise that store manager to corral his employees before the store gets shuttered by Apple HQ.

[rozwado1]

Originally Posted by chris v

Turned him down? as in:

"Hi, I'd like to buy that there computer."

"No, you can't. I won't sell it to you, go away."

??

I'd advise that store manager to corral his employees before the store gets shuttered by Apple HQ.

Not a direct 'NO', but more than one salesman teaming up and letting the guy know that it wasn't a good idea to purchase a G5 now.

If I was a shareholder, I would have made a scene.