-
Apple hardware Q4 and 2014
-
That’s funny!
-
[Craig Seeman] “The only reason why the iMac isn’t amongst that crop was because Apple couldn’t make them fast enough as per Cook’s comments during Apple’s report. iMacs do sell well as all in ones go.”
I wasn’t talking specifically about this report. Apple Desktops are shrinking, and they will continue to do so. All of this obsolescence was carefully planned. This is the trend that I’m talking about, and if you think that iMacs Pros or Macmini Pros are coming to change this picture, you might want to reconsider it. They could come in the form of gorgeous pieces of gear, sure! Eventually they could become desktop flagships for a little while, and this could be good for Apple Pro Apps too. But how long is it going to last? Or how successful is it going to be? You seem to imply that desktops do have the potential to expand Apple’s business, but I just can’t see that. According to Apple’s strategies they simply won’t need them anymore. In other words, even if they allow us to use -God forbid- PCI cards, that thing will not last long enough to have, let’s say, three revisions. It’s a 2014 model and later on one in 2015. Then what? Finito. It’s just one big transitional phase for all the power users that still are on board. Some will stay on the mobiles, others will leave. That’s the story of Apple becoming a very distinct tighten niche.
-
OK, I should have said selling “into” boxes rather than selling the boxes themselves. And thinking back, that’s not really accurate at all. MS didn’t actually have to activelly “sell” anything. Their product and their profit stream was woven into the fabric of every possible PC computer purchase
I remember quite distinctly accompanying a friend to buy a PC in the late 1980s – and since he was a serious techie who wanted to run BSD Linux – he first asked how much the computer would cost with MS-DOS installed – answer was $X,XXX. Then he asked how much it would cost without MS-DOS installed – the answer was $X,XXX.
That’s how MS came to dominate computing. You literally could NOT buy a non-Mac PC without paying the license for that OS. The box and the OS were essentially fused PRIOR to the point of purchase.
So to say Microsoft didn’t “sell” hardware, while technically accurate, misrepresents the situation on the ground. You bought a non-Mac personal computer, you paid Redmond. Period.
Inseparable, really.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Which is a real poo as (in case you don’t know or forgot), the Mac Pro isn’t technically available in the EU at the moment…
Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor -
[Bill Davis] “So to say Microsoft didn’t “sell” hardware, while technically accurate, misrepresents the situation on the ground. You bought a non-Mac personal computer, you paid Redmond. Period. Inseparable, really. “
The point is that Microsoft didn’t design the boxes, they had no hand in it’s design or manufacture.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “That’s how MS came to dominate computing. You literally could NOT buy a non-Mac PC without paying the license for that OS. The box and the OS were essentially fused PRIOR to the point of purchase.”
Not true at all. You could always build or by computers without MS-DOS installed. Some vendors sold generic machines without an OS, some didn’t. Also, remember that there were other choices outside of
Apple or Microsoft (Commodore, IBM). I myslef was a huge fan of Amiga before I started using Windows. Finally, Microsoft didn’t build the dominance of Windows PCs in the consumer market, Compaq, Tandy, and thousands of systems integrators did that.Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] ” I myslef was a huge fan of Amiga before I started using Windows.”
The first home computer I had was am Amstraad running yet a different OS. I believe it was called Geo or something like that, which was a GUI shell on top of DOS. Then there was CPM, the Digital Research DOS and later IBM’s OS2 and Warp. Let’s also throw another inconvenient fact out there. For a while (maybe still), Microsoft was the largest vendor for third-party Mac software, mainly because of Office.
But Bill’s point about Apple being disruptively innovative is definitely true. Of course “disruptive” and “professional” user are often contradictory – especially when the gear you rely on is being disrupted.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “The first home computer I had was am Amstraad running yet a different OS. I believe it was called Geo or something like that, which was a GUI shell on top of DOS. Then there was CPM, the Digital Research DOS and later IBM’s OS2 and Warp. Let’s also throw another inconvenient fact out there. For a while (maybe still), Microsoft was the largest vendor for third-party Mac software, mainly because of Office.”
I think you’re thinking of GEM — Graphical Environment Manager [link]. That takes me back!
I had a couple OS/2 machines. They were cool. Preemptive multitasking, an object-oriented desktop metaphor, and Windows API compatibility. Microsoft and IBM collaborated on early versions, and IBM ultimately marketed OS/2 as “A better Windows than Windows.”
But Bill is correct that a lot of people paid for MS-DOS whether they wanted it or not, and whether it was installed or not. From Wikipedia [link]:
Prior to 1995, Microsoft licensed MS-DOS (and Windows) to computer manufacturers under three types of agreement: per-processor (a fee for each system the company sold), per-system (a fee for each system of a particular model), or per-copy (a fee for each copy of MS-DOS installed). The largest manufacturers used the per-processor arrangement, which had the lowest fee. This arrangement made it expensive for the large manufacturers to migrate to any other operating system, such as DR DOS. In 1991, the U.S. government Federal Trade Commission began investigating Microsoft’s licensing procedures, resulting in a 1994 settlement agreement limiting Microsoft to per-copy licensing.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] ”
But Bill is correct that a lot of people paid for MS-DOS whether they wanted it or not,”The bottom line is that MS and Apple operated from essentially the same approach. MS said to the manufacturers that if you wanted DOS or Windows you had to set up a bundling/licensing arrangement. Apple told consumers that if you wanted Mac OS, you had to buy Apple hardware (or licensed clones for awhile). Fundamentally the two flip sides of the same coin.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “The bottom line is that MS and Apple operated from essentially the same approach. MS said to the manufacturers that if you wanted DOS or Windows you had to set up a bundling/licensing arrangement. Apple told consumers that if you wanted Mac OS, you had to buy Apple hardware (or licensed clones for awhile). Fundamentally the two flip sides of the same coin.”
Apple has been able to do a lot of stuff that would have gotten Microsoft in a lot of trouble ten or fifteen years ago, haven’t they?
One critical difference is Apple’s control over hardware. Microsoft never had that. It’s easy to forget now, but Windows once ran on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC in addition to x86.
But I’ll get back to Bill’s original quote:
[Bill Davis] “Remember Microsoft missing the whole “on-line” idea for years in favor of just selling boxes full of ever incrementally improved processors and only making large shifts when it was impossible not to do so? Somebody blazes the trails, others follow. When you’ve blazed it, you can settle down and run the local store. Or you can keep moving forward and look for the next trail to blaze.”
Microsoft suffered no long-term ill effects from “missing the whole ‘on-line’ idea.” Bill Gates turned that ship on a dime, and MS became network/Internet savvy practically overnight.
Netscape, on the other hand — the trailblazer and innovator in Bill’s example — lost big-time. Innovators don’t always win.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up