[Spliff]

Power Mac - 174,000 units, below 200K bogey previous announced as Apple's quarterly goal. Total channel inventory reduced 10 percent. Delayed in shipping Xserve G5 until last week of quarter. "True" sales 190K for the quarter when that's factored in.

This is the second quarter in which Apple hasn't sold as many PowerMacs as expected. I thought the G5 is supposed to be "awesome" and so much better than the PowerMac G4. G4 sales were down because everyone was waiting for the G5. Now it's out and it's not selling nearly as well as it should be?

Any ideas why?

[iREZ]

First rev's. Im sure once software is optimized for G5's the sales for G5 powermacs will increase accordingly. I know lots of people asking themselves what the point of getting a dual 2GHz G5 is when 3GHz Powermac's are going to be released by the end of this year. Just wait till the next rev's and you'll see more sales, I'm sure of it. Nobody wants to be a guinea pig.

[k2director]

You don't just reverse a long, steady decline overnight. The PowerMac G4 languished for a few years, while Intel iron made a ton of headway. The G5 goes a long way towards addressing that slide, but it takes customers a long time to notice a positive change, and also regain confidence.

If Apple is aggressive in developing the G5 PowerMac over the next couple years, I have no doubt things will get a whole lot rosier. Of course, long delays for hardware revisions doesn't help, but one can hope this current delay is unique, not standard operating proceedure.

[Eug Wanker]

Because the 2.5 updates aren't here yet of course.

[D'Espice]

Because they're too expensive? You know, it's hard to sell a computer that is about as fast as, say an Athlon64 or Pentium4 3.2 GHz yet is way more expensive. Not everybody knows that Macs aren't about the Hardware but also about the Software - and that is something that is really hard to sell people.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
Because they're too expensive? You know, it's hard to sell a computer that is about as fast as, say an Athlon64 or Pentium4 3.2 GHz yet is way more expensive.

I know that cost is a big problem with Apple in Canada. They do well with iBooks and eMacs here, but the cost of the PowerMacs is just brutal. The dual 2 Ghz is $4100 Cdn, before sales tax (roughly 14%)!

Most of my friends tell me they could buy two kick-ass, fully decked-out PCs for that price.

[Jim Paradise]

Price.

LACK OF ADVERTISING. Advertising is Apple's worst enemy except for when it comes to the iPod.

*edited*

"Oppenheimer estimated that the adjusted Power Mc unit sales was closer to 190,000. Apple had previously said it hoped to achieve 200,000 Power Mac unit sales after the launch of the Power Mac G5. In the Q&A, Apple said it now expects to have some quarters with more sales and other with less than the 200,000 target, depending on the product life cycle and seasonality. Apple also said the product mix of G5 Power Mac is much higher than the previous G4 sales."

Product life cycle and seasonality= depending if we update the PowerMacs more than once a year or ship them sooner than three months after we announce them. Sounds like a lot of bs to me. Apple should be shooting for higher than 200,000 per quarter and not setting themselves up to say it's okay if they don't hit that mark.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by Spliff:
I know that cost is a big problem with Apple in Canada. They do well with iBooks and eMacs here, but the cost of the PowerMacs is just brutal. The dual 2 Ghz is $4100 Cdn, before sales tax (roughly 14%)!

Most of my friends tell me they could buy two kick-ass, fully decked-out PCs for that price.

Exactly. Maybe the pricing works out better in the States somehow, but the PowerMacs' pricing in Canada is obscene.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by Spliff:
I know that cost is a big problem with Apple in Canada. They do well with iBooks and eMacs here, but the cost of the PowerMacs is just brutal. The dual 2 Ghz is $4100 Cdn, before sales tax (roughly 14%)!

Most of my friends tell me they could buy two kick-ass, fully decked-out PCs for that price.

Not only Canada - take a look at Europe. Up to 20% sales tax plus in general, higher prices even without sales tax. (Yes, Apple Europe sucks ass).

[RooneyX]

Because people want lower prices and 3Ghz+ CPUs with 128MB graphic cards. It means they have future proof systems and money to spare for monitors. The problem with the G5 and its marketing is that it reaches out to an even more niche market than previous Power Macs. And it doesn't serve that niche well enough with a 64MB graphic card (CAD and 3D work needs more) and several other features that aren't up to spec. CPU's alone don't make the system.

[iloop]

I don't understand this "it's more expensive in Canada" thinking.

The current Canadian prices are:

2499 3499 4099

U.S. prices are:

1799 2499 2999

Using today's exchange rates to convert the Canadian prices to US dollars, we get:

1859 2603 3050

So...it's a *bit* more expensive to buy them in Canada. A *little* more so considering the higher income tax (buy in Alberta) but nothing I would call drastic.

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by iloop:

So...it's a *bit* more expensive to buy them in Canada. A *little* more so considering the higher income tax (buy in Alberta) but nothing I would call drastic.

We also have 15% sales tax.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by iloop:
I don't understand this "it's more expensive in Canada" thinking.

So...it's a *bit* more expensive to buy them in Canada. A *little* more so considering the higher income tax (buy in Alberta) but nothing I would call drastic.

Well, there is the higher income tax rates in Canada. And US salaries are generally much higher than Canadian salaries for comparable jobs.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Because people want lower prices and 3Ghz+ CPUs with 128MB graphic cards. It means they have future proof systems and money to spare for monitors. The problem with the G5 and its marketing is that it reaches out to an even more niche market than previous Power Macs. And it doesn't serve that niche well enough with a 64MB graphic card (CAD and 3D work needs more) and several other features that aren't up to spec. CPU's alone don't make the system.

You're absolutely correct. Pro machines should not have middling 64 MB video cards. Not at these prices.

[Hydra]

The simple answer is that it wasn't a very good idea to announce 3GHz in one year from launch of the G5. It makes it far to easy to stick it out and wait for a new revision. Now that the 2.0 has been out for 7 months even a 2.5 update will be met with a tepid response as most will rationalize waiting a little longer for the 3 GHz. It only serves to box Apple in. I forget the name of the computer company in the late 70's (Mits' Atltair?) which announced it's new computer a year before it was ready and everyone stopped buying the current model. The company went under before they ever had a chance to finish the new model. I'm not saying Apple is gonna go under but it always hurts sales to make people think that their shiny new computer is not nearly as good as the one that will be released in a year. We all know this to be true but never give someone a firm target like that in a small market segment - it could be deadly.

-Jerry C.

[DrBoar]

For some it might also matter that the tower went from 4 HD bays and 2 optical drives to 2 HD bays and one optical drive. An other thing is that we really do not trust Apples CPUs any more. The G4 was and is a bad desktop CPU and the IBM 970 have to prove that it scales OK before.

To put the 970 as a desktop CPU in perspective a single 2 GHz does not beat a 3.4 GH P4 or the top end AMD offerings, that is spank a 1.42 GHz G4 does not impress.

Intel has been stuck for a long time at just above 3 GHz so it is a golden opportunity to get back in the race for Apple. But rest assured that Intel will become unstuck soon perhaps by the Pentium M chip variants or by other means so the clock is ticking for the 970.

Back in the summer of 2003 a CPU faster than 1.42 GHz and a nifty case was good news, in the summer of 2004 that is stale cockies...

The good news compared to Moto is that IBM has both an interest in getting the 970 to scale well, and the skills to do it I hope

[*Mhz]

Originally posted by iloop:
I don't understand this "it's more expensive in Canada" thinking.

The current Canadian prices are:

2499 3499 4099

U.S. prices are:

1799 2499 2999

Using today's exchange rates to convert the Canadian prices to US dollars, we get:

1859 2603 3050

So...it's a *bit* more expensive to buy them in Canada. A *little* more so considering the higher income tax (buy in Alberta) but nothing I would call drastic.

Ok so that is expensive?

These prices are in Finland (without sales tax in USD) EUR-USD 1,19

2021 2735 3330

And the cheapest PB is 1903.

[jaybay]

here in Australia, the prices in US$ for the 1.6, 1.8 and 2 are:
$2360, $3245 and $3909

this is why here in oz, i am very carefully trying to decide the time to update both the laptop and desktop.

[rhansen_x]

Because we are all waiting for the next Rev. I agree - not many people want to be a guinea pig.

[Evan_11]

I had to return a refurb dual G5 because of various issues and just received a brand spanking new one. The new G5 which comes pre-loaded with 10.3.2 feels solid. No obnoxiously loud fans, freezes or other glitches...so far (fingers crossed).

I'm speculating that the number of power users, those that need a powermac have dwindled over the years. Unfortunately Apple lost quite a few of those people (never a large base anyway) to intel over the last few years. I hate to say it but there are a lot of old school mac users who just don't like OS X. I've talked with a few and many just assume to either stick with OS 9 or switch to windows. Luckily for Apple I'm one of the young and loyal recent switchers who appreciates what is going into X and the G5.

I think Apple needs to get a powerful G5 into a mini-tower for under a grand as soon as possible. Forget the built in display. The end-user is savvy enough to buy their own. Introduce a $500 17" Cinema display (like the one currently available to the iMac) as kind of an entry level. Most people I talk to want to use Mac computers however price and software availability always seems to be the sticking point.

[striker100]

I think it's funny that some think the reason the G5 Powermacs are not selling as well as was expected is because the 2.5 or 2. whatever version is not released yet. So what's going to happen when they are released, they won't sell as well as to be expected because the rev c version 3ghz is not out yet?
The one and only reason the G5 Powermacs are not selling as well as might be expected is price, not that many people today spend $3000 on a computer.
I'm not even sure Apple is surprised at the lower Powermac sales volume. Apple has always been more of a high margin company than high sales volume, they make more money on each G5 Powermac they sell than practically any company that makes PC's..

[DVD Plaza]

Originally posted by striker100:
The one and only reason

Speak for yourself mate - might be YOUR one and only reason but I know several people who are keen to get a G5 but are waiting because Steve said there would be 3GHz machines this year.

[NYCFarmboy]

I think a lot of people are waiting on the dual 3 ghz G5's.

I have a 1.42 dual that replaced a 400 mhz g4 tower...so its not real critical that I upgrade right away.

Whether intentional or not... Steve probably should not have announced 3 gig machines as I think that held back demand. Why buy a 2 gig when you know a 3 gig will be here this summer?

ALSO: I personally think the G5 towers are just plain ugly to be honest, and way too big.
I was hoping the design would grow on me..but it has not.

Yes..beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just giving my 2 cents.

[freakboy2]

why g5s aren't selling well:

the low end (affordable one) is hamstrung and obviously will be obsolete before long

the high end ones are overpriced and the cases are HUGE. i'd buy one but where the hell am i going to put it?!?!

AND THEY COST TOO MUCH!

i can buy a top of the line pc for about 2k. the top of the line mac is 3k + 500$ to get it up to spec.

i was about to build myself a FAST pc for about 800 (scavenging old parts).

Also OSX 10.3 made old machines faster again. My dad was going to buy a new g5 until he got 10.3 and then he was like "damn i don't need it" he has a DA 533. (now upgraded iwth a 1.2 g4 from powerlogix.)

Apple just doesn't get it. MAKE A GOOD CHEAP BOX WITHOUT A MONITOR! people will buy it.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by freakboy2:
why g5s aren't selling well:


Also OSX 10.3 made old machines faster again. My dad was going to buy a new g5 until he got 10.3 and then he was like "damn i don't need it" he has a DA 533. (now upgraded iwth a 1.2 g4 from powerlogix.)

Very good point! 10.3 has made my 400 g4 tower a fun machine to use again and definately extended its life.

Likewise on my orange clamshell ibook (300 mhz I think)...and white (500 mhz) ibook...both were given a fresh breath of life by 10.3.

[kupan787]

Originally posted by DVD Plaza:
Speak for yourself mate - might be YOUR one and only reason but I know several people who are keen to get a G5 but are waiting because Steve said there would be 3GHz machines this year.

Me and my roommate (who is switching from a PC) are waiting for the 3.0 GHz update before we both purchase PCs. Why? Because we don't absolutly need to upgrade today, but we both would like to upgrade soon. We don't want to upgrade now (so late in the life of the Rev A), so we are waiting for the 3.0 update, as we know when it is due (right before start of next semester) and it is a nice round number.

As far as price is concerned, my roommate hasn't really complained. He knows how much he wants to spend ($3500 in total), and he knows what it will take for him to get that (he has been saving since January). As for me, sure I wish the machine was a bit cheaper, but I know what I am getting for that price. If it means a few less nights eating out, and a few more cup-o-noodles so be it

[Graymalkin]

I think a lot of people are holding off on G5 purchases until the 3GHz systems come out. A $129 Panther upgrade turns an older Mac into a pretty nice machine and is likely letting people wait until the G5s are at a nicer price point to buy. Since there's an expectation of 3GHz machines in the summer, waiting until then to pick up the low end or mid-range machines will be worth the wait.

They were also released at an inopportune time for lots of institutional buyers. They were released in the late summer with an OS version that was two months away from an upgrade. The mid-range systems were also fairly unimpressive until the November revision. I know a lot of bulk educational purchases are made in late spring and early summer for delivery before the fall semesters start. I would bet since Panther is now standard on the G5s and they're pretty featureful in the mid-range sales will pick up this and next quarter.

[striker100]

OK so some people are waiting for a 3.0ghz G5 before they buy one.
That might be a 7 month wait, remember even if a 3.0 G5 is announced by the end of summer (which might not happen, look at the current delay) it's not unusual for Apple to ship 2-3 months after the announcement.
So when the 3.0ghz G5 is announced and Steve Jobs says there will be a 4ghz G5 by whenever are those waiting for the 3.0ghz going to wait for the 4ghz G5?

Most of the general public purchases a computer when they need it, only Mac addicts actually follow when a certain CPU speed is announced.

[emark]

whether people are waiting for 3.0 ghz is questionable, but everyone is thinking where's the blinkety-blank update of some sort...

depends on what you're work/pleasure needs/wants are. For anyone w/ an OK box and w/o a NEED, I'd wait it out.... if there isn't a modest bump soon, then a big jum isn't too far off.

[eddiecatflap]

Originally posted by Hydra:
The simple answer is that it wasn't a very good idea to announce 3GHz in one year from launch of the G5. It makes it far to easy to stick it out and wait for a new revision. Now that the 2.0 has been out for 7 months even a 2.5 update will be met with a tepid response as most will rationalize waiting a little longer for the 3 GHz. It only serves to box Apple in. I forget the name of the computer company in the late 70's (Mits' Atltair?) which announced it's new computer a year before it was ready and everyone stopped buying the current model. The company went under before they ever had a chance to finish the new model. I'm not saying Apple is gonna go under but it always hurts sales to make people think that their shiny new computer is not nearly as good as the one that will be released in a year. We all know this to be true but never give someone a firm target like that in a small market segment - it could be deadly.

-Jerry C.

..i think it was osbourne computing , they did a steve and the company folded

..but you make a very valid point

..why the hell did steve pre-announce a mac that would make the current line out of date , silly move that one , i can't be the ONLY one holding out for the dual 3 ghz

[driven]

The reason I haven't bought one yet (and I suspect others as well) is that I'm waiting for the next rev. I'm in no rush to get one, so it doesn't hurt me to wait.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by driven:
The reason I haven't bought one yet (and I suspect others as well) is that I'm waiting for the next rev. I'm in no rush to get one, so it doesn't hurt me to wait.

But that's what everyone said when PowerMac G4 sales were down: "I'm waiting for the G5."

It looks as if we've become addicted to the "next big thing" from Apple. We won't buy until Steve Jobs wows us with some freakin' amazing new product.

[Dennis the Phantom Menace]

Why I won't buy the current crop of G5's:

Waiting for a cooler running CPU. I know that 90 nm G5 is just around the corner.

[PookJP]

Count another vote for the 3GHz pre-announcement problem. I'm not in the market for a G5 right now, but if I were, I wouldn't buy one until the 3 GHz came out. I might not even need the power, but I'd like to get the current top of the line at bottom of the line prices.

One asterisk on this point of view for asking why the general public isn't buying is that we, the posters on MacNN, are the minority who are "in the know." Most people don't listen to the media outlets that would carry the news of a forthcoming G5 processor speed, so most people never heard about it. I doubt that enough people are paying attention to Apple news to have had it make a truly significant impact.

That brings us to the issue of advertising. Apple? Isn't that the company who used to make computers and now makes that iPod?

[discotronic]

The reason I'm not going to buy a G5 right now or anytime soon is because I need to get a better job.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by discotronic:
The reason I'm not going to buy a G5 right now or anytime soon is because I need to get a better job.

Vote Kerry!



(whoops!)

[driven]

Originally posted by Spliff:
But that's what everyone said when PowerMac G4 sales were down: "I'm waiting for the G5."

It looks as if we've become addicted to the "next big thing" from Apple. We won't buy until Steve Jobs wows us with some freakin' amazing new product.

I didn't say that.
I actually bought a G4. (A Cube)

The G5 surprised me. I didn't know it was coming.

[paulc]

I( think a good bit of the issue is that there is no sales efforts at all at where they used to sell much larger numbess of machines... to the enterprise. There sed to be thousands of companies with hundreds of installed Mac desktops. I'd bet ya that there are barely one or tweo dozen that break 100 now.

PowerMac sales are all ones and twoes to home users.

Further, I'd bet that 95-97% of their sales are to current Mac owners.

I hate to say this, but purely from a business standpoint, they'd be smart to ditch the Power Macs, keep the iBooks, PowerBooks and Pods. Maybe keep the eMac for the edu market... maybe.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by PookJP:
Vote Kerry!



(whoops!)

That's funny

[John Dwight]

I was definitely caught looking for the 2.5 ghZ G5. I'd assumed they'd be here in April several months back, and held off on getting a 2 ghZ. I have a dual 800 G4. I've had a steadfast rule: don't upgrade until the new proc is double my current Mac's speed. This has definitely slowed my Mac consumption thanks to bad Moto mojo over the years.

Now I'm stuck. I can still see getting a new 2 ghZ (although the vid card "options" for the Mac truly suck), but now that I've waited this long for the 2.5s, I don't want to get caught buying right before a surprise launch of the 2.5s. I certainly won't wait until next year to get a 3 ghZ, however, since I'm sure it'll be quite a while after their announcement before they ship.

I have lay this problem squarely on Apple's continued reluctance to bear down on their hardware. Still, there's no alternative platform for me.

[mobiusxtal]

Several reasons:

1) Price...current configs. are anywhere from $500-$1K too pricey for what they offer. This business of continuing to offer a crippled low-line model mostly for the purpose of differentiating between otherwise almost-the-same models fools few of us. More than circa 90% of ALL the costs to produce and sell G5s do not vary from cheapest to most costly stock G5 configuration.

2) Update expectations (already discussed to death)

3) New monitor expectations...waiting to buy until the new larger monitors that match the G5 are released...the old stuff is lagging in specs. (contrast ratio/brightness and weird apect ratio--new big screens need to be 16:9 and not the oddball 16:10) as well as value. It'll be interesting to see how many users buy the 30"...I'm waiting for that too, hoping to use it as my single bedroom/office computer and TV screen...I can justify one for work because of visual impairment. Another factor is wanting the applecare policy I would c onsider buying to cover both screen and CPU.

4) Professionally is really where my biggest problem comes in. As a technical writer/pubs. mgr., I and my industry heavily rely upon on Adobe's Framemaker for our work. Adobe claimed an OSX-compatible upgrade to be released "soon". Instead, the whoresons milked the distribution channel until all manufactured product was sold (full package was selling for circa $500 until recently) and then announced it had been killed. There is really no alternative for long documents on the desktop; Quark, Pagemaker (RIP),and InDesign have never been designed or suitable for long, large sets of technical documentation. This task is beyond anything one could reasonably expect of running in the Classic box or VirtualPc, eliminating the chance of making do with the last stable version. (Supposedly minor updates will continue to be released for Windows and old-iron Unix server versions, but coders I have read now think the old code is so full of patches and fixes and "spaghetti code" that it needs to be redone from scratch.)

Those of us that use or prefer Macs are thus somewhat screwed; the best we can immediately hope for is that Adobe will spin the application of to an outside developer such as the one from which they originally bought it (perhaps in a 2-fer deal with the other big Mac app. they nuked, Premiere.) It may in theory be posible to run it from a server in an X-window, but that takes away the hope of really doing it on the desktop, and I cannot justify using Macs as glorified X-terminals at their current prices.

(At 42, retirement is not really an option either!)

Originally posted by Spliff:
This is the second quarter in which Apple hasn't sold as many PowerMacs as expected. I thought the G5 is supposed to be "awesome" and so much better than the PowerMac G4. G4 sales were down because everyone was waiting for the G5. Now it's out and it's not selling nearly as well as it should be?

Any ideas why?

[kovacs]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
Not only Canada - take a look at Europe. Up to 20% sales tax plus in general, higher prices even without sales tax. (Yes, Apple Europe sucks ass).

I can only agree, prices here are absurd...

[nforcer]

My main concern like that of others is the price. For the price of just about any standalone G5, you can get almost a top of the line PC with a monitor. If I'm going to pay a premium, I expect premium hardware-related features, not just the ability to use OS X and a nice case. On top of an expensive comp, I then have to spend more on a good multibutton mouse, and more on a decent monitor. It all adds up.

Because of the price, I also have to be more selective of when I purchase. If I spend $3000-$4000 on a comp, it's going to have to last me at least 3 to 4 years. I want PCI Express support. I want Hypertransport 2 support. I want support for faster RAM. And I want Nvidia and ATI to have their top cards available for Macs close to when they release them to the PC world.

[Spliff]

I'm also concerned by Apple's inability to grow its marketshare. Sure, there was a small jump in their share of the laptop market, but that's it. I'm assuming that most of the iPod sales are to PC owners, and perhaps, Apple believes that a significant number of those PC-owning iPod users may switch to a Mac when it's time to upgrade their computers.

I have four former Mac-using friends who, when it was time to upgrade, opted for PCs. All four of them gave the same two reasons for switching: 1) cost; 2) their work uses PCs.

Regarding the first reason, I can't really disagree with them. They could get an eMac or iMac, but you can't upgrade their video cards. They can upgrade their PCs. I suspect, however, that this is just a perceived benefit. None of my friends has actually upgraded their PC's video card. They've added internal USB hubs and hard drives, but that's it. They'll buy a new system instead of upgrading their video cards.

I think Apple should make the video cards upgradeable in the eMacs and iMacs just so they can dispel the hostility towards Apple for not providing upgradeability. Alternatively, they could release a low-end expandable headless desktop machine, but according to an Ars Technical article, that's not going to happen:

One of the execs (I believe it was Tim Cook) came right out and said that Apple had no plans to participate in the low-end of the desktop market, because it is not profitable for them. So those who are hoping for a cheap, headless Mac better turn their attention elsewhere, because it's not going to happen under Apple's current leadership.

.

As for the second reason, none of my friends actually uses their home computer for work. Or, if they do, the app they use is available for the Mac. That isn't often the case, though. I have several clients who need to use AutoCad, for example. There is no Mac version. VectorWorks can, I think, export to AutoCad, but for my clients, that's not good enough. So they're buying Dell.

In fact, I'm hearing Dell mentioned frequently around new computer buyers. Dell seems to becoming synonymous with "computer," just like Kleenex is to "tissue," Xerox is to "photocopying," and Aspirin is to "acetylsalicylic acid." When someone mentions they're looking to buy a computer, I hear their friends say, "Get a Dell." How did Dell get such good word of mouth?

One of my former Mac-using friends bought a Dell. He recently tried to upgrade it to XP Pro, but couldn't because his system was infected with six virii. He couldn't understand this because he had the latest Norton Anti-virus with up-to-date virus definitions. Nevertheless, his system was infected along with loads of spyware and adware. This wasn't enough to make him want to go back to using a Mac. Even with the virii on his system, his system still worked, so that was good enough for him. He just called up a PC-savvy friend and offered him a case of beer to fix his computer. My point is that people will put up with a lot of computer problems (virii, spyware, crashes, etc), but they won't tolerate high prices for a computer. A bargain will beat ease-of-use, security, and aesthetics 95% of the time.

[Geek-Mo]

There sed to be thousands of companies with hundreds of installed Mac desktops. I'd bet ya that there are barely one or tweo dozen that break 100 now.

I'm employed by a privately held firm totaling 5 divisions, in excess of 250 employees spread around the country & by far the majority of the desktop & laptop computers are Macintosh. The "other" platform is only forcefully utilized when required. Macs were deployed for their ease of use. I'm not straying from this thread, but simply repling to the previous quote.You must be honest with yourself as that Macs are more intuitive, which is why this firm has the installed base of Macs.

At a personal level, I also am holding off from upgrading from my rev. b Yosemite to a G5 as I feel that I can wait additional time for not only the hardware revisions, but also the pre-announced 2 to 3 GHz speed bump. I'm only hoping that they're availble by Labor Day this year.

[cc_foo]

If I were intent on buying a fast desktop, I might consider a G5. But a few things hold me back.

1. The cheapest model is "not as good value" as the 1.8 & 2.0 GHz ones, because it's a little hamstrung. Logic tells me that in Rev B, all 3 models will be more "equal". i.e. no handicapping the underlying structure of the cheapest machine. Reminds me of the Sawtooth/Yikes motherboard issue.

2. I don't want something with 9 fans (or less for single processor) in it to keep it working. I don't want to pay extra just so I can get 8 extra fans that can fail in the years to come. I don't like having to rely on these fans. And I don't think I can buy replacements fans.

3. The myriad noise issues. I can't stand loud computers. There are ways around this (putting computer far away, using styrofoam etc creatively). But I don't want to have to resort to those, if I have already paid a premium.

4. Fact is, I don't want to pay the same price someone else did 7 months ago, for the same machine. This applies to any Mac to be honest, but it pinches harder for an expensive machine.

5. When the new PowerMac is releasd, hopefully Apple will take into account the fact that the A$ has slightly strengthened since the Rev A G5s were released, and adjust the Australian prices downwards accordingly.

The bottom line is, I'm not in the market, so these aren't really complaints. Just comments.

[Switched2Mac]

Originally posted by cc_foo:
If I were intent on buying a fast desktop, I might consider a G5. But a few things hold me back.

4. Fact is, I don't want to pay the same price someone else did 7 months ago, for the same machine. This applies to any Mac to be honest, but it pinches harder for an expensive machine.

I agree.

Other vendor lowers their prices as time goes on for this very reason.

[driven]

Originally posted by striker100:
I think it's funny that some think the reason the G5 Powermacs are not selling as well as was expected is because the 2.5 or 2. whatever version is not released yet. So what's going to happen when they are released, they won't sell as well as to be expected because the rev c version 3ghz is not out yet?
The one and only reason the G5 Powermacs are not selling as well as might be expected is price, not that many people today spend $3000 on a computer.
I'm not even sure Apple is surprised at the lower Powermac sales volume. Apple has always been more of a high margin company than high sales volume, they make more money on each G5 Powermac they sell than practically any company that makes PC's..

You are missing the point.

If I needed a G5 when it first came out or within 4-5 months of it's release I would have leaped on it like a frat-boy on a cheerleader. However, we've been in "there's a new machine any day now" mode for a few months. We know that there is an impending release, so if at all possible to wait, we just do it.

After the next rev (whatever speed) is released then it'll be worth buying for 6-7 more months .... :-)

[driven]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Very good point! 10.3 has made my 400 g4 tower a fun machine to use again and definately extended its life.

Likewise on my orange clam shell ibook (300 mhz I think)...and white (500 mhz) ibook...both were given a fresh breath of life by 10.3.

Wow ... I might have to upgrade. (Still on 10.2x)
Would it breathe new life into my 500Mhz Cube?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by driven:
Wow ... I might have to upgrade. (Still on 10.2x)
Would it breathe new life into my 500Mhz Cube?

yes Panther (10.3) would DEFINATELY breath new life into your cube.

To be honest I really don't use any of the "new" features of Panther that much, however it has very much improved boot times and the system just runs faster without getting sluggish or getting that spinning ball all the time.