Companies you believe in (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Anyways, Apple does a good job at promoting standards and has based a lot of its software on open-source code. The more cool software out there that runs well on its system, the more appealing a mac becomes, and the more money apple makes.

I think that's a key.That's what got me off Apple 20 years ago. I had a Macintosh and wanted a piece of software (contact management thing) and it was PC only. I wanted it enough that I got a PC. And didn't look back for 19 years. J

 

[adonis]

Anyways, Apple does a good job at promoting standards and has based a lot of its software on open-source code. The more cool software out there that runs well on its system, the more appealing a mac becomes, and the more money apple makes.

I think that's a key.That's what got me off Apple 20 years ago. I had a Macintosh and wanted a piece of software (contact management thing) and it was PC only. I wanted it enough that I got a PC. And didn't look back for 19 years.

J

Similar to me. I grew up on PC, and only within the past year and a half have I even considered Apple. But as soon as I started reading up on what changes they've made to their computers, and how they've moved towards interoperability and better performance by switching to Intel chips, getting Unix 03 certified, encouraging standards like CalDev, near-flawless simultaneous running of windows alongside OS X, I converted. It wasn't the iPod, or the iPhone that sold me on Apple; it was their vision and the direction their PC lines are taking, in developing excellent hardware, and pioneering excellent software.

So, honestly, I think that if Apple gains more market share, and Windows becomes less and less the mainstream OS for business and consumers, more open-source programs and opportunities will come from it, because it plays to Apples strengths. Of course, they'll continue to patent the heck out of stuff they come up with, and hardware/technology they develop, but the standards they base their OS on will only serve to encourage cross-platform and open-source development.

Here's a good article on this topic from an uber-fanboy website referenced earlier (just so you know where it's coming from). The points he makes are still valid though, but you might have to step over some Microsoft hate to get there . Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source. I'm pretty sure this was written back when MS decided to sue Linux for violating hundreds of their patents.

Microsoft claims software like LInux violates its patents

 

[adonis]

I might as well highlight a few things from the article, so people don't have to read all of the MS hate, and I'll try to explain how I see it affecting Apple's market share.

These circumstances have been in place for well over half a decade with little obvious movement in market share. Microsoft has maintained its monopoly position, FOSS (free and open source software) has struggled to make any inroads on the desktop, and Apple has remained in a small minority position. Things under the surface have changed dramatically however.



Among them is the fact that Apple has partnered with open source in key areas where its own interests align with FOSS developers.

As a commercial developer with a significant installed base of customers in key markets, Apple's support for open alternatives rather than the de facto, proprietary standards pushed by Microsoft has helped to support the position of resistance incited by FOSS--and in particular Linux--users pushing for open interoperability.

A few key examples are Apple's support for:

1. •OpenGL over Microsoft's proprietary DirectX/3D

2. •PDF over Microsoft's proprietary XPF

3. •LDAP and Kerberos in addition to Microsoft's proprietary version of Active Directory

4. •web standards over Microsoft's proprietary Internet Explorer extensions

Apple is not supporting open, interoperable standards and protocols to give away the company's value as part of a hippie love-in, but because it makes business sense.

The better Apple's products work with other systems, the more attractive its products will be. That's why the company also works to build interoperability with closed and proprietary standards that are entrenched in the market, including Microsoft's Active Directory service.

Microsoft is also growing to recognize the value of interoperability and open standards. Parts of the company have released technologies to open standards bodies, and Microsoft employees report that there is a new push to embrace standards-based development. This is due in part to the fact that development using open standards simply makes business sense.

Other hardware makers in a position similar to Apple, including Cisco, IBM, and Sun, have also worked to incorporate FOSS, open their own software, and work to use interoperable standards. These companies were all once known for hoarding their proprietary software away as secrets that needed to be protected, and for resisting outside ideas as shunned, “Not Invented Here” foreign developments. Things change.

IBM, Sun, HP and now Apple are certified Unix OS vendors. Advantages:

"Any software written for the SUS specification is easily portable to a UNIX 03 operating system, meaning that enterprise customers who need a 'real' UNIX for their applications can now use Leopard servers if they so desire," writes Ars. "Leopard's certification also gives developers another option for a development platforms, which could translate into some extra Mac sales."

Essentially, this alignment with standards and open source, opens the door for Apple to enter the enterprise market, eventually. As these standards become, well, more standard, companies will begin opting for them instead of being locked into the Microsoft solutions. Granted, this may take a bit of time, but I think companies will get tired of being locked into a Microsoft solution for many enterprise applications, and will start to look towards more standard based and open source solutions, and Apple will be strategically poised to take advantage of this. It will end up being better for business users too, because it will increase competition and collaboration among software providers as what works on one system should work on another. It will take time, as MS has a very tight stranglehold on its user-base, but it really does seem like the tide is turning. I dunno how long it will take to shift significantly, but I think it's going in a more open and standards-based direction, and Apple is strategically poised to take full advantage of this once that happens, while MS will have serious problems.

 

[adonis]

Oh, and as far as other companies to look at, Ford. Reports that they're still on track to be profitable by '09. Stock prices are still quite low. Things seem to be heading in the right direction in terms of putting out quality products, excellent reviews, and selling off parts of the company that would hold them back from rebuilding.

There are still huge hurdles to overcome, but for me at least, it's worth a little risk for a potentially big payoff in a few years.

That said, Ford isn't a company I necessarily "believe in" yet, but they're getting a lot closer than they used to be.

 

[crush304]

It will end up being better for business users too, because it will increase competition and collaboration among software providers as what works on one system should work on another. It will take time, as MS has a very tight stranglehold on its user-base, but it really does seem like the tide is turning. I dunno how long it will take to shift significantly, but I think it's going in a more open and standards-based direction, and Apple is strategically poised to take full advantage of this once that happens, while MS will have serious problems.

I think microsoft is already losing ground quickly the last couple of years, you don't see it as much in the user counts as you see it in price. I think once they run out of room to give by dropping prices, they'll start losing users.you might also take a look at vmware, they have a new virtualization product for mac. I've been hearing a lot about them lately for server virtualization but they are new to the mac market

 

[adonis]

It will end up being better for business users too, because it will increase competition and collaboration among software providers as what works on one system should work on another. It will take time, as MS has a very tight stranglehold on its user-base, but it really does seem like the tide is turning. I dunno how long it will take to shift significantly, but I think it's going in a more open and standards-based direction, and Apple is strategically poised to take full advantage of this once that happens, while MS will have serious problems.

I think microsoft is already losing ground quickly the last couple of years, you don't see it as much in the user counts as you see it in price. I think once they run out of room to give by dropping prices, they'll start losing users.you might also take a look at vmware, they have a new virtualization product for mac. I've been hearing a lot about them lately for server virtualization but they are new to the mac market

Looks pretty good. The more options, the better. Nice that it allows one to play PC games on their mac.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

 

[goonsquad]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

Pretty sure this has been discussed and proven false numerous times on the board already.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

Pretty sure this has been discussed and proven false numerous times on the board already.

maybe so. All I know is I bought a bottom of the line Dell for $550 2 years ago for the sole purpose of web browsing, and I thought that Apple's low end laptop was $999?I'd love to be proven wrong. I'll probably be in the market for another laptop in the next year to replace our desktop, so I'd love to buy a Mac.

 

[goonsquad]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

Pretty sure this has been discussed and proven false numerous times on the board already.

maybe so. All I know is I bought a bottom of the line Dell for $550 2 years ago for the sole purpose of web browsing, and I thought that Apple's low end laptop was $999?I'd love to be proven wrong. I'll probably be in the market for another laptop in the next year to replace our desktop, so I'd love to buy a Mac.

Ah, that's a different story. You're not making a comparison of equal equipment, just looking at the fact that Apple's lowest end is higher than Dell's from a tech spec point (and associated price point). I would guess that Apple keeps it's lowest end fairly high in order to be sure that even their weakest machine can still run all the features of OS X and the iLife programs.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

Pretty sure this has been discussed and proven false numerous times on the board already.

maybe so. All I know is I bought a bottom of the line Dell for $550 2 years ago for the sole purpose of web browsing, and I thought that Apple's low end laptop was $999?I'd love to be proven wrong. I'll probably be in the market for another laptop in the next year to replace our desktop, so I'd love to buy a Mac.

Ah, that's a different story. You're not making a comparison of equal equipment, just looking at the fact that Apple's lowest end is higher than Dell's from a tech spec point (and associated price point). I would guess that Apple keeps it's lowest end fairly high in order to be sure that even their weakest machine can still run all the features of OS X and the iLife programs.

that's why I stated in my initial post that the apple is "clearly a superior machine". I realize I'm not comparing apples to Apples. but if you're buying a laptop for the reasons I suggested (95-99% web browsing), does it really make sense to pay double?

 

[goonsquad]

but if you're buying a laptop for the reasons I suggested (95-99% web browsing), does it really make sense to pay double?

Probably not. But if that's really all you're doing what's the difference? Firefox will be more or less the same either way.

 

[tommyGunZ]

but if you're buying a laptop for the reasons I suggested (95-99% web browsing), does it really make sense to pay double?

Probably not. But if that's really all you're doing what's the difference? Firefox will be more or less the same either way.

Exactly. Which is why I wish apple would offer a comparative $550 laptop. I'd buy it over a windows based PC in a heartbeat.

 

[Otis]

Apple Kicks Microsoft Where It HurtsPosted by Mitch Wagner, Aug 9, 2007 11:46 AMApple's announcement this week of new iMacs, software, and services strikes at the Windows platform's core strengths. The new generation of iMacs, priced starting at $1,199, compete on price/performance with midrange PCs. And Apple rounded out its iWork suite with the Numbers spreadsheet software and other capabilities, making it a head-to-head competitor with Microsoft Office.It's getting hard to find reasons to buy a Windows PC, aside from sheer inertia. Windows PCs used to be far more cost-effective than Macs, but no longer. Macs can now compete hard with PCs on cost, for all but the very cheapest, sub-$600 Windows machines.This is especially true when you factor software into the price. The Mac comes bundled with iLife software, offering sophisticated video, photo, and audio editing. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to find equivalent software for the PC.But while Apple is entrenching its position in the midpriced and high-end desktops, it's accelerating its retreat from the bargain basement. Apple is discontinuing the $999 17-inch iMac; the entry-level iMac is now $200 more expensive: $1,199 for the cheapest of the new line.Even the Mac Mini, priced under $800 without a display, keyboard, or any external components, is an afterthought for Apple. Although the Mini received an upgrade Tuesday, it didn't get any of the love lavished in the iMac and applications.Apple's retreat from the low end is intentional -- Apple just isn't interested in shipping el cheapo PCs, said Apple CEO Steve Jobs: "[We] just can’t do it. We can’t ship junk. There are thresholds we can’t cross because of who we are," Jobs said Tuesday.Mac fans will see that as a declaration of Apple's superiority. Mac haters will see it as ridiculous snobbery. I don't see it as either -- just a simple statement of fact. Apple is competing in the midrange and high end PC market, it's not interested in the low end of the market.iWork: iWork is a main area where Apple is bringing the battle to Microsoft. Apple added a spreadsheet to iWork, called "Numbers," making it more of a head-to-head competitor with Office. John Gruber, author of the blog Daring Fireball, writes: "This is the 'bring it on' release of iWork."MacUser writes: Numbers is a spreadsheet done in the style of Keynote and Pages, featuring intelligent tables that allow sorting and filtering by clicking on headers; a flexible canvas that allows multiple sheets on a single canvas, meaning you can use formulas to tie them together, but format them separately; interactive printing that lets you scale content so that you get exactly what you see; and drag-and-drop formulas. The point of Numbers, as with the other elements of the iWork suite, is to be able to make beautiful spreadsheets very quickly. Best of all, it’ll allow you to import and export almost all Excel documents.Gruber describes Numbers as: a total ground-up re-imagining of what a "spreadsheet" app is. The fundamental element is not the spreadsheet; it’s a canvas on which you can place elements, which elements can be tables (which are spreadsheets), charts, and graphics. Look at the “Intelligent Tables” features. What Numbers really is is a way for people to create their own table-based software. Numbers might be as much a new Hypercard as it is a new Excel.Apple upgraded Pages, its page-layout software, to make it function better as a word processor, including the ability to import documents with change-tracking from Microsoft Word.Microsoft is going to be facing some tough times with its Microsoft Office monopoly. The monopoly is currently riding on fear -- everybody else uses Office, so if I don't I might not be able to share critical documents -- and the needs of a few Excel and PowerPoint power-users. For the rest of us, there are plenty of good alternatives to Office. Office costs $300 for most people -- although student discounts can bring the price down to about $150. OpenOffice.org and its Mac port, NeoOffice, does almost everything that Microsoft Office does, and it's free. Now, iWork is another alternative for Mac users, priced at $79.iLife: Apple upgrade iLife, with changes to iMovie to speed up the movie-making process, GarageBand for creating audio and podcasts, and iPhoto. AppleInsider has details, with screenshots.iPhoto has features that make it easier to organize photos.. It addresses a problem that I face: Thousands and thousands and thousands of photos occupying the hard disk, almost completely disorganized. Are you looking for the particular photo you took four years ago of Great-Aunt Gertie dancing the cha-cha at your son's Bar Mitzvah? Good luck with that -- it's buried under a vast pile of digital mulch.The new iPhoto organizes photos that were taken at the same time into Events.You can also hide photos in iPhoto. That's great for people like me -- I hate to delete a single photo, but I don't want to look at all of them every time I flip through an album.iPhoto automatically exports your photos into a Web Gallery, which is a new feature of the .Mac service.Apple incorporated Web Gallery into the iPhone, updating the smartphone's software through some magical means that didn't involve user intervention. That's unusual; until now, updates to iPhone software were delivered over the Internet, through iTunes, when iPhone owners synched their devices to the desktop. iPhone Atlas speculates that the updates were delivered wirelessly over the EDGE network. Either that, or the Web Gallery was included in the iPhone software update 1.01, released July 31, and timed to go live Tuesday.iMovie '08 isn't just a movie editor - it also works as a library of all your online video. MacUser writes: Music, sound effects, photos, titles, and transitions can all be added with ease, and the Share options make it a snap to export video to a variety of sources: iTunes, ipod, iPhone, Apple TV, or in a .Mac Web Gallery. You can encode in multiple resolutions for different quality downloads, even going higher than DVD if you want. And if you want to share it immediately, there’s a Share option that lets you send your movie directly to YouTube.iMovie requires a G5 or Intel processor, so owners of older Macs need not apply.You can get video tutorials of the new iLife and iWork applications. While you're there, catch a video of Jobs's presentation, and see the new Mac commercial, which will give you good idea what the new iMacs look like.Not the least of Tuesday's announcements: Apple upgraded its .Mac service.. I mentioned the online photo gallery earlier; Apple also added additional storage capabilities, bringing the maximum online storage to 10 GB.The added capacity actually makes .Mac practical as an online backup service. Apple really needs to add an unlimited-storage option to make .Mac competitive with online backup services like Amazon S3 and Mozy.Mac Mini: The Mac Mini got upgrades as well. The new version still comes in two models, $599 and $799, but features Core 2 Duo processors versus the previous Core Duos — now 1.83 and 2.0GHz instead of 1.67 and 1.83GHz (supposedly “up to 39 percent faster than the previous generation”). Apart from that, 1GB of RAM is now standard, and the hard drives got a modest increase, now up to 80GB and 120GB. Amazingly, it seems the new model does not include 802.11n, which is surprising and disappointing. No cosmetic change, no mention on Apple’s homepage....Jobs hates the Mac Mini, says Gruber on Daring Fireball. "[T]think about [Jobs's] comments during the event making fun of Dell machines because of the all the cables you need to hook them up to displays and webcams. That all applies equally to the Mini," Gruber said.New keyboard: The change to the iMac extended to the keyboard, which is now a sleek, silvery device. You can get a closer look at the new keyboard on the Apple Web site.One change to the keyboard: No Apple logo on the Command key. Instead, you just have the cloverleaf symbol, and a new addition, the word "Command." This will be useful for new Mac users, who often have trouble finding the Command key because it doesn't say "Command" on it. As an interesting aside, Apple pioneer Andy Hertzfeld, part of the origianl Mac development team more than 20 years ago, explains how that cloverleaf symbol came into being.Apple opened up the floor to Q&A with Jobs at the end of the news conference. MacWorld writes: One question that came from the audience wondered why Apple doesn’t participate in the “Intel Inside” program, in which PC manufacturers affix the well-known labels to their computers. “We like our own stickers better,” Jobs said. “Don’t get me wrong. We love working with Intel. We’re proud to ship Intel products in Macs. They’re screamers, and combined with our OS, we’ve tuned them well. It’s just that everyone knows we use Intel processors. We’d rather not tell them about the product that’s inside the box.”Gruber responds on Daring Fireball: Jobs offers a rare chance for a public Q&A and someone asks why they don’t booger up their computers with horrid stickers? Will someone please tell me who asked this question so I can name him jackass of the week?

 

[The Commish]

Apple fan here - I'll buy a Mac when they get real with their prices. It's a superior machine, but it's not worth 2x the money for 95% of us who use our laptops at home almost exclusively for web browsing.

Once Apple drops the prices on Macs, they'll gain market share quickly, IMO.

Edit to add: Obvious Jobs disagrees, as Apple is retreating from lower line PCs.

Pretty sure this has been discussed and proven false numerous times on the board already.

Probably depends on the user and their ability. It's not worth it to me at this point, but am not against purchasing once the price comes down.

 

[adonis]

I just bought a discounted mac mini from amazon. I'll upgrade to iLife '08, install Parallels, Windows XP and Windows Office 2007 and I'll be set. Link to former high end mini Link to former low-end mini

 

[Fennis]

The Apples lovers in this thread remind me rednecks driving around with a decal of Calvin taking a leak on a Ford emblem or a #3 or whatever it is. A decal of an Apple taking a piss on MSFT would be huge business.

The next company I believe in is the one that makes that decal. The cult would eat it up.

 

[adonis]

The Apples lovers in this thread remind me rednecks driving around with a decal of Calvin taking a leak on a Ford emblem or a #3 or whatever it is. A decal of an Apple taking a piss on MSFT would be huge business. The next company I believe in is the one that makes that decal. The cult would eat it up.

I like MS. Good idea for a sticker though, even though it'd be hard to make an apple pee. Could give the apple arms and feet, and have it standing with hands on hips...that might work.

 

[goonsquad]

The Apples lovers in this thread remind me rednecks driving around with a decal of Calvin taking a leak on a Ford emblem or a #3 or whatever it is. A decal of an Apple taking a piss on MSFT would be huge business.

Too low-brow for the Apple crowd. We're pompous and snooty, remember?

 

[mr. furley]

I feel the same about AAPL. Been big on the bandwagon (with my mouth, not so much my money) since about this time last year. Just an awesome company that consistently innovates and just puts out superior products. I think in NYC we see it more than people in other parts of the country -- if you take the subway to work every morning, you see how many people have the white headphones on leading into the obvious iPod in their pocket. These things are everywhere.I love AAPL as well, and I think long term it is going to be a great investment.

NYC <> the rest of the known world

 

[Fennis]

The Apples lovers in this thread remind me rednecks driving around with a decal of Calvin taking a leak on a Ford emblem or a #3 or whatever it is. A decal of an Apple taking a piss on MSFT would be huge business.

Too low-brow for the Apple crowd. We're pompous and snooty, remember?

I couldn’t figure how to make a sticker that shows an Apple talking ad nauseam (in a pompous way!) how much better Apple is than Microsoft, but I agree with you... that would be better.Hey good for Apple, one of the most impressive things about that company is the brand loyalty it inspires. In turn that allows them to make higher and typical margin in the consumer space. Apple brand loyalists not only pay higher prices, but really they get a charge out of doing so.

 

[adonis]

Really rough day for Apple stock. At one point it was down to 126.5.

Only time will tell if this would've been an amazing bargain considering recent stock prices, or if it was the start of a general decline.

If I had more money laying around, I'd certainly be adding more stock.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

 

[goonsquad]

The Apples lovers in this thread remind me rednecks driving around with a decal of Calvin taking a leak on a Ford emblem or a #3 or whatever it is. A decal of an Apple taking a piss on MSFT would be huge business.

Too low-brow for the Apple crowd. We're pompous and snooty, remember?

I couldn’t figure how to make a sticker that shows an Apple talking ad nauseam (in a pompous way!) how much better Apple is than Microsoft, but I agree with you... that would be better.

I think the plain white Apple logo stickers that ship with their products already achieve this.

 

[taco breath]

new belgian brewery

 

[tommyGunZ]

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

This is probably correct, and I respect Apple for this decision if that's the reasoning behind their decision not to offer a cheap base model.Unfortunately for this consumer, that means that it's unlikely that I'll ever own a Mac since web surfing on a MAC isn't much/any diff than surfing on a PC. I'd probably pay a small premium for a Mac b/c the design is a bit cooler, but not 2x.

 

[adonis]

AAPL 121 at some point this morning.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

so apple is up today because a 17 year old went on cnbc today with his story of spending his summer vacation hacking into the phone so he could unlock ity and use it with his t-mobile family share plan.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

This is probably correct, and I respect Apple for this decision if that's the reasoning behind their decision not to offer a cheap base model.Unfortunately for this consumer, that means that it's unlikely that I'll ever own a Mac since web surfing on a MAC isn't much/any diff than surfing on a PC. I'd probably pay a small premium for a Mac b/c the design is a bit cooler, but not 2x.

If you mostly do web surfing, a used Mac is really cheap.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

 

[jdoggydogg]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

But the Mini doesn't come with monitor or keyboard, right? So doesn't that price the mini higher than an entry-leval PC?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

But the Mini doesn't come with monitor or keyboard, right? So doesn't that price the mini higher than an entry-leval PC?

Correct. I guess I'm just saying they do offer a relatively low end Mac. I would have worried somewhat as well about "cheapening" the brand but it doesn't seem to have hurt.J

 

[jdoggydogg]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

But the Mini doesn't come with monitor or keyboard, right? So doesn't that price the mini higher than an entry-leval PC?

Correct. I guess I'm just saying they do offer a relatively low end Mac. I would have worried somewhat as well about "cheapening" the brand but it doesn't seem to have hurt.J

The cool thing about that Mini is it's pretty powerful for an entry-leval computer.

 

[adonis]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

But the Mini doesn't come with monitor or keyboard, right? So doesn't that price the mini higher than an entry-leval PC?

Correct. I guess I'm just saying they do offer a relatively low end Mac. I would have worried somewhat as well about "cheapening" the brand but it doesn't seem to have hurt.J

The cool thing about that Mini is it's pretty powerful for an entry-leval computer.

I just got one and I'm very happy with it. Especially the size. Can't beat it. I got the new, lower-end mini. Have parallels installed on it, and it runs like a charm. Even has speakers built into it, which is nice sometimes. You can't even tell it's on it's so quiet.Anyways, yeah, it's lower end, but slightly more expensive than a computer that comes with a monitor and keyboard and stuff. I haven't priced the spec comparison, but I'd be interested to know whether a similarly configured computer that comes with what the mac mini comes with would run you, including the ilife bundle.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I have always owned Apple computers. But I used high-end PCs for years at work. I like both operating systems, but I prefer OSX for my home graphics work.

What gets lost in the PC vs. Apple debate is that both products fulfill different needs. The biggest knock on Apples is price. Someone in this thread mentioned that all of Apple's current models run all of Apple's new software and OS. That is true. And to expand on that, Apple isn't interested in making a low end computer to compete with the low end PCs.

If Apple sold a low end $500 model, it would diminish their brand. Apple's brand is built upon the perception of quality, and introducing a cheap base model would tear down all the work they've done branding the company's rep as a quality computer manufacturer.

Don't they already do this with the mini? Not quite 500 but definitely lower end. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...esktop/mac_miniJ

But the Mini doesn't come with monitor or keyboard, right? So doesn't that price the mini higher than an entry-leval PC?

Correct. I guess I'm just saying they do offer a relatively low end Mac. I would have worried somewhat as well about "cheapening" the brand but it doesn't seem to have hurt.J

The cool thing about that Mini is it's pretty powerful for an entry-leval computer.

I just got one and I'm very happy with it. Especially the size. Can't beat it. I got the new, lower-end mini. Have parallels installed on it, and it runs like a charm. Even has speakers built into it, which is nice sometimes. You can't even tell it's on it's so quiet.Anyways, yeah, it's lower end, but slightly more expensive than a computer that comes with a monitor and keyboard and stuff. I haven't priced the spec comparison, but I'd be interested to know whether a similarly configured computer that comes with what the mac mini comes with would run you, including the ilife bundle.

If I remember correctly, Macs run very fast. So that has to be figured into the equation.

 

[prosopis]

I believe in me.

 

[adonis]

New product releases which will increase iTunes revenue when the wifi itunes store is unleashed, interest in bidding on the government auction of the airwaves, continuing increased sales of the iPhone - what's not to love?

 

[adonis]

AAPL 121 at some point this morning.

153ish today. Still no reason why it shouldn't get up over 200 before long.

 

[Challenge Everything]

AAPL 121 at some point this morning.

153ish today. Still no reason why it shouldn't get up over 200 before long.

When would they consider splitting the stock in order to get more investment money from people? Would they even consider splitting at this point?

 

[Mystery Achiever]

AAPL 121 at some point this morning.

153ish today. Still no reason why it shouldn't get up over 200 before long.

When would they consider splitting the stock in order to get more investment money from people? Would they even consider splitting at this point?

splitting stock increases liquidity and may,for a very, very short time, create some psychologically-based rise in the share price; it doesn't provide additional funds. increased liquidity provides some stability in the share price of small companies with thinly traded stocks. aapl is not in this category.

 

[Challenge Everything]

AAPL 121 at some point this morning.

153ish today. Still no reason why it shouldn't get up over 200 before long.

When would they consider splitting the stock in order to get more investment money from people? Would they even consider splitting at this point?

splitting stock increases liquidity and may,for a very, very short time, create some psychologically-based rise in the shareprice; it doesn't provide additional funds.

It provides additional funds in that the price is lower so it promotes new investors and their money. Everyone knows splitting does not increase funds but it does make it much easier for new investors to put forth their money.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

[it provides additional funds in that the price is lower so it promotes new investors and their money. Everyone knows splitting does not increase funds but it does make it much easier for new investors to put forth their money.

sorry, i'm still missing something. how does it provide additional funds? the new investors buy existing shares from existing investors.

 

[Challenge Everything]

[it provides additional funds in that the price is lower so it promotes new investors and their money. Everyone knows splitting does not increase funds but it does make it much easier for new investors to put forth their money.

sorry, i'm still missing something. how does it provide additional funds? the new investors buy existing shares from existing investors.

I am an Apple investor. I have one stock at $150. My friend does not want to buy one stock at $150 because it will only be one stock, however he would be willing to buy one stock if the price were at ~$75. What do you know? The stock splits and I now have 2 stocks valued at $75. My friend will happily buy one stock now at $75. That is new money to the company. If hundreds of people do this, or think in this manner, which most people do, stock splitting increases funds by the after effect of the split. Or, the company hopes it will, especially after doing this. Maybe Apple does not want/need new money so it will not split for some time but there is that chance.

 

[guru_007]

[it provides additional funds in that the price is lower so it promotes new investors and their money. Everyone knows splitting does not increase funds but it does make it much easier for new investors to put forth their money.

sorry, i'm still missing something. how does it provide additional funds? the new investors buy existing shares from existing investors.

I am an Apple investor. I have one stock at $150. My friend does not want to buy one stock at $150 because it will only be one stock, however he would be willing to buy one stock if the price were at ~$75. What do you know? The stock splits and I now have 2 stocks valued at $75. My friend will happily buy one stock now at $75. That is new money to the company. If hundreds of people do this, or think in this manner, which most people do, stock splitting increases funds by the after effect of the split. Or, the company hopes it will, especially after doing this. Maybe Apple does not want/need new money so it will not split for some time but there is that chance.

:X

 

[Mystery Achiever]

The stock splits and I now have 2 stocks valued at $75. My friend will happily buy one stock now at $75. That is new money to the company. If hundreds of people do this, or think in this manner, which most people do, stock splitting increases funds by the after effect of the split. Or, the company hopes it will, especially after doing this. Maybe Apple does not want/need new money so it will not split for some time but there is that chance.

I understand the stock is now "more affordable" to people who are buying very, very small quantities. But how ido you see Apple getting new money from this? They did not sell these shares to your friend.Maybe we're having a semantics issue....

 

[Buckna]

This is from the motley fool so it is somewhat tongue in cheek. On why stock splits are a good thing:

First, as a stock price skyrockets, some people will be psychologically unwilling to pay that "high price" so a stock split brings the shares down to a more "attractive" level. Again, the intrinsic value has NOT changed, but the psychological effects may help the stock. Second, a stock split generally occurs in the face of new highs for the stock. Thus, it's an event dripping with positive connotations and associations. . . it's makes bulls snort and roar to suddenly have "twice as many shares" as they started with, for example. Third, and final, with lower-priced shares, a stock's LIQUIDITY (FAQ topic, see LIQUIDITY) increases, often reducing the BID/ASK SPREAD (FAQ topic, see BID/ASK SPREAD) and making it easier to trade. This is always good.

FWIW, Apple last split it's stock in Feb 28, 2005. It was in the $80 range at the time.

 

[goonsquad]

This is from the motley fool so it is somewhat tongue in cheek. On why stock splits are a good thing:

First, as a stock price skyrockets, some people will be psychologically unwilling to pay that "high price" so a stock split brings the shares down to a more "attractive" level. Again, the intrinsic value has NOT changed, but the psychological effects may help the stock. Second, a stock split generally occurs in the face of new highs for the stock. Thus, it's an event dripping with positive connotations and associations. . . it's makes bulls snort and roar to suddenly have "twice as many shares" as they started with, for example. Third, and final, with lower-priced shares, a stock's LIQUIDITY (FAQ topic, see LIQUIDITY) increases, often reducing the BID/ASK SPREAD (FAQ topic, see BID/ASK SPREAD) and making it easier to trade. This is always good.

FWIW, Apple last split it's stock in Feb 28, 2005. It was in the $80 range at the time.

I doubled my shares! :snortandroar:

 

[Gordo]

Apple Announcements Brewing for Late October

Apple Inc. has begun preparatory measures for significant announcements to take place during the last full week of October, AppleInsider has been told.

While sources have requested that we not go into detail regarding the specific measures being put into place, they say the announcements are likely to arrive any time between the 22nd and 27th of the month.

Obviously, such a timeframe would coincide with Apple's self-imposed release schedule for Mac OS X Leopard, which the company -- after having delayed the software once -- has promised for "October."

As of Wednesday evening, the source code to Leopard had not yet been frozen and a Gold Master had not yet been declared. However, the operating system in recent weeks has inched closer to this status with the last full builds including only one known issue.

Historically, Apple has tapped the final Friday of the month to roll out its major operating system overhauls. For instance, it launched Mac OS X Tiger on the eve of Friday, April 29, 2005.

Sources have yet to rule out the possibility that Leopard would be accompanied by additional announcements from the Cupertino-based company.

Update: We are receiving additional tips from industry sources who indicate that October 26 is currently the estimated ship date for Mac OS X Leopard.

Apple Exploring Pressure Sensitive Touchpads/screens

Seeking to improve its portable devices, Apple has applied for a patent that could lead to touch-sensitive Macs or handhelds which react to the level of force, rather than just contact.

Originally submitted in March of last year but only published on Thursday, the patent for a "Force Imaging Input and Device System" describes today's touchscreens and touchpads as limited by their relatively simple input, which tracks just the location of the finger or stylus on the surface. A method of detecting the strength of the user's input would add a new element of control, according to Apple.

"One drawback to using touch pads as input devices is that they do not generally provide pressure or force information," the company writes. "Force information may be used as another input dimension for purposes of providing command and control signals to an associated electronic device."

To solve the problem, the patent's inventors Brian Huppi and Steven Hotelling have suggested lining touchpads with a set of traces joined together by a sandwich-like spring membrane layer underneath the surface. Touching the pad would deform the traces and create a capacitive image in circuitry, indicating where contact has been made.

But unlike traditional capacitive or resistive touch surfaces, the membrane would help create a second image that recognizes just how much pressure has been applied at a given point; the harder the user pushes, the closer the membrane reaches conductive elements inside the layer and the more force would be registered with each press.

Though Apple's patent application primarily describes a touchpad like those used for the company's MacBook lines, one variant mentioned in the document would also allow for an LCD touchscreen with the same features, raising the possibility of an iPhone or other touch-sensitive computer with the new control scheme. Computers, phones, PDAs, and control panels are listed as candidates for the technique, although Apple is not obliged to manufacture any products using its invention.

Importantly, however, the company notes that the system would recognize more than one source of input at the same time, allowing the firm's existing multi-touch system to work with the pressure-sensitive feature intact. Apple goes so far as to reference an older patent for a "Multipoint Touch Screen," one of the cornerstones of its iPhone technology, as supporting evidence for its new control method.

 

[Gordo]

Mac Nano?

If the AppleTV's lack of an optical drive has been an issue for you, look no further than a soon to be announced update to the popular iDevice for that very issue to be addressed. Also, the entry-level model will be dropped to $249 with a 60GB or maybe even 80GB HDD (depending on market conditions about six or seven weeks from now), and two other models at $299 and $399 sporting 120-160 and 200-250GB drives respectively. The optical drive may not be available on all models, another vagary of our most recent source reports on the subject. More on the AppleTV 2.0 and its across-the-board hardware/software upgrades later this week when the key embargo expires!

The grapevine is increasingly excited about a series of Apple Events between now and mid-December, introducing no less than five all-new products including at least one entirely new Mac product line -- almost certainly the much anticipated Macbook Nano.

We have the privilege of being able to exclusively report on information provided to Mac OS Rumors by one of our oldest and most reliable sources in Cupertino: the Mac Mini is dead.....Long Live the Mac Nano!

The exact naming and marketing details are not as firm in our sources' estimation, since he's not an Apple Marketroid....but the new Mini will be as small in the horizontal as an internal optical drive will allow, and a little over 2/3 the height. Overall volume will be shrunk almost 25%, weight by about 20% and an all-new enclosure will be strikingly different from the design that has been the Mini's defining feature since its introduction.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

AAPL

NOV vs. AAPL

All kidding aside, both have been fantastic stocks.

But I am not sure a prudent investor should be piling into either of them right now.