« Apple unveils Intel dual-core Macbook and iMac | Main | World's biggest LCD and zoom on Samsung's latest camera »
Could Apple's hype backfire?
Many questions were left unanswered after Apple's launch of its new MacPCs yesterday, not least how the company plans to live up to its hype. There was wild cheering when Steve Jobs screened a new TV commercial saying the Intel processor had for years been trapped in boring old PCs and was now being given freedom to do really interesting, creative work.
When the two hardware platforms were different, and therefore hard to compare directly, it was easier to get away with this kind of clever codswallop. But how will it play beyond the ranks of Mac groupies, among people willing and able to see through cheap cracks? There seems a good chance that it could backfire on Apple.
The new Intel-based Macs are good products and provide welcome competition in the PC world (see our review). Leaving aside the issue of whether the MacOS X is better than Windows XP or its imminent successor, Vista, Apple buyers arguably get a better software package out of the box than the basic Windows package ... though it has to be said that most PCs are bundled with software that makes the comparison a little more even.
Apple is a leader in using mobile processors in desktop machines, enabling faster, sleeker and quieter designs. But it is by no means the first, and the company's new stress on performance per watt has been a mainstream concern in the PC world for five years, which is one reason Apple switched to Intel.
The new iMacs do not even offer the fastest Core Duo processor. Apple spokesman Tom Boger, flown over from the company's Cupertino headquarters to answer questions from UK journalists, said the slower versions were used to keep prices down. But you don't get the option to pay for the fastest - something unthinkable on a mainstream Windows PC
These are early days, and presumably we are going to see many more MacPCs launched over the coming months. But what will professionals, using demanding applications, think when Apple tells them they are not allowed to use the fastest processors? And when there are patently far more powerful PCs available, probably at a lower price? Where is the liberation in that?
Which raises another unanswered question: what is the difference between a MacPC and a PC? What is to stop you, or Taiwanese manufacturers, running the MacOS X on a standard Windows PC? Boger refused to say how the MacPC platform differed from Napa, the third-generation Centrino platform launched with the new Core Duo processors at CES last week. He also refused to say whether the Intel-based MacOS X and so-called universal applications - those that run on both the new and old platforms - will run on a PC; nor would he say what was stopping them if they could not.
He did say: "We have no plans to make the MacOS X available on other platforms."
But will this stance be sustainable? Either Apple will have to keep up with every advance in Intel-based hardware, which will be hard for a company of its size, or it will have to admit that it cannot offer the fastest machines. And its vaunted creative users need fast machines.
The developer editions of the Intel MacOS apparently relied on the Trusted Computing Platform (TCP) chip to tie the software to the hardware and hackers quickly claimed to have bypassed this. It seems likely that a black market will develop in unauthorised MacPCs. One theory has it that Apple actually wants this to happen, giving it an excuse to move to an open hardware platform without antagonising the Mac faithful.
The fact is that unless Apple comes up with the hardware goods it will reinforce the more negative side of its reputation: that it has more style than substance. Elegant though they are, the new machines are not the best in the world. They are certainly not, stuck as they are with a Victorian keyboard and 25-year-old interface, the most avant garde.
That crown goes to much-maligned Microsoft's Tablet PC, which is surely a precursor of the interface of the future. Models like Motion's LS800 and the Fujitsu-Siemens P1510 lack the chic of the MacBook Pro, but in their way they are years ahead of it - and have their sights still further ahead. And unlike the 5.61b MacBook Pro, which is about the weight of a brick, you can easily carry them around.
There is no computer branded as a "MacPC." All the computers in the Macintosh line, regardless of what processor they have used, have been PCs (Personal Computers). Your article appears to be about a fictional product.
Posted by Anonymous | February 7, 2006 1:41 PM
The iMac line is not targeted at pro users. I got one in december (my first apple product) and don't care that I can't get the fastest processor - I couldn't afford it. People that do want that can get it when the pro desktops come out.
Posted by Tracy | February 7, 2006 4:07 PM
Actually, PC has traditionally and historically been used to refer to IBM and IBM compatible computers. If you tell a computer geek you have a PC, it is assumed you have the X86 chipset under the hood.
It is a case where the most obvious meaning of the word is not in line with the common usage.
Posted by e-head | February 7, 2006 4:39 PM
The "precursor of the interface of the future" is a microsoft tablet??!! I thunk not.
Maybe the real point made here is that apple considers that designing something right is better than rushing something next. Tablets may be the future, but the ones around right now are a little too short in the tooth. I'll take my reliable, well designed, stylish, enviable, "slow," "victorian" apple with keyboard, thanks!
Posted by youreanidiot | February 7, 2006 5:58 PM
the intel macs are by all accounts a lot faster than the G5 macs, and the G5 macs are pretty damn fast. anyway you know apple will release faster machines probably sooner than later.
Posted by james brown | February 8, 2006 1:51 PM
Oh please! How about trying to write a BALANCED well researched article.
Posted by Jonathan Farina | February 8, 2006 5:09 PM
Can someone say AGENDA?!? This author is more sour than a glass of lemonaid (which at least has SOME sugar!) He obviously knew exactly what he wanted to write before he even began researching the article.
"Victorian keyboard"? My keyboard isn't made of powder-white wrought iron. It doesn't have a parquet of inlayed wood patterns. I think your own powdered wig has slipped down over your eyes.
It is common knowledge that the iMac line is the consumer-grade product line. iMacs have NEVER had the fastest processors, yet they sell faster than hotcakes. Perhaps there is a market among Apple customers who realize that an affordable machine with a well-integrated operating system and software that actually works is far better than a hotrod machine that is finicky, temperamental, and in constant need of 'tweaking'.
The professional Mac models are always equipped with the fastest CPUs. Were you aware that the release of the Intel iMacs was months ahead of schedule? So yes, the iMac beat the PowerMac to the gate, and that is why there are no "top-of-the-line" macs in the stables right now. They're still right on schedule, under developtment.
Get your facts straight. You don't seem to want to break news, you just BREAK the news.
Posted by Greg Lee | February 8, 2006 5:48 PM
Sloppy job, Mr. Reporter. There is no 25 year old interface in a Mac. The Mac OS X UI was overhauled completely (and controversially) from Mac OS 9. From your article I get the feeling you've never used a Mac. You certainly didn't actually look at one to research your piece.
Don't dismiss anyone as a groupie too quickly either. A lot of people either by choice or by obligation at work, use multiple computers.
It would be a mark of intelligence to be able to critique and compare a complex item like a computer, without resorting to hyperbole and partisanship.
Posted by Bob | February 8, 2006 8:24 PM
All I can say to this article is "B---S--T.
Obviously Clive Akass is a so dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft supporter that he obviously has not seen the sleek, beautiful designs of the whole Mac range of computers. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I would not be surprised if he was on the payroll of Microsoft.
Everywhere I look where there are PC's, they are, without exception, the dullest, most boring designs that have ever been created, and this ten years after Apple introduced the then-radical iMac. Not one PC desktop manufacturer has been able to keep up with the design of Apple's desktops and I have only seen one laptop that looks like a very cheap copy of Apple's powerbooks. It looked like crap beside my 17" Powerbook.
Not only that, according to reviews of Vista, Microsoft is copying, or is it stealing, many of the ideas that are currently in Mac OSX. MS does not have one ounce of creativity, either in software design or hardware, if they ever really get into that. The same can be said of Clive Akass' article - no creativity or originality of thought.
Posted by Roger Adams | February 9, 2006 8:39 AM
Well, it seems to be the consensus view that this reporter (if you'll call him that) is a dumbass. Since most of your other points have already been slaughtered, I need to slaughter your hilariously incorrect speculations.
While I have no sources to confirm this, I am told that the TCP has been worked around, but few people are actually doing this, and even if they are, it is doubtful that the computers are fully functional.
The article refers to how Apple will have trouble "keeping up" with Intel's "rapid" technological advancements. What the hell is there to keep up with? If Intel makes a faster processor or chipset, you put it in! Easy as that! And Intel's technology isn't really changing that rapidly.
And this article refers to Apple as a small company. Apple's net worth recently surpassed Dell's.
Professionals aren't going to be demanding an Intel Mac for quite some time. Applications need to be rewritten for the new architecture first, which is going to take time. But home users, whose needs are not as great, will find great enjoyment in these fast new machines, and if they still need to use PPC based software, they can rely on Rosetta and it will be sufficiently fast for them. Granted, the general public isn't really ready for these new Macs until more software gets out, but they are much anticipated, and Apple wanted to get them out, because this is big for them.
As much as I support free speech, I also support the use of the brain we are given, and Clive, you should try doing that some time. And do a little research on Apple before you try critiquing their business methods. They seem to be doing pretty well at the moment.
Posted by Aaron Harpole | February 11, 2006 4:31 AM
Just to show how wrong speculation can be (and this is only the first shipping version):
"Instead of using the previously announced 1.83 gigahertz Core Duo processor, Apple said the new high-end MacBook will feature a 2.0 Ghz chip, but will remain priced at $2,499. The lower-end $1,999 model will have a 1.83 Ghz chip, instead of the previously announced 1.67 Ghz chip.
Customers may also upgrade to a 2.16 Ghz version."
(from Excite News 2/14)
Posted by Kaz | February 14, 2006 9:53 PM
Hello.
As you may have noticed from these preceding comments, not one of them are good. I agree with all of them and I am also under the impression of many that you are being paid by microsoft for this slander. Let me tell you something. Microsoft have not come out with their own ideas since Apple mac came into existence. The GUI, the Xbox (The Pipin), Windows Pocket PC (The Newton), Vista (Mac OS X). Name me one idea that Microsoft have actually come up with themselves. In fact, even better, name me one thing you have actually done in this "Article" other than lie and poke fun at a company with current share prices more than twice Microsoft's. Yes, microsoft (or rather one of the windows hardware manufacturers) has come up with the tablet pc, (The oversized newton). Since when are tablet pcs lighter than the Macbook Pro? In the last few months apple has filed a horde of patents for touch screen technology (See one example: http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Touch_Screen_Interface_Patent ). Apple are current industry leaders in almost every part of computer technology, software or hardware. IN NO WAY are they "victorian" or 25 years old. how are they twenty five years old? look at the very fist version of Mac OS and compare it to now.
I could write more but i'll save it for the others.
All I want first is to say one thing.
Clive Akass, you are the most brainless cretin I have ever known to exist in my entire life.
I also would like some feedback to these comments posted.
Thank you
Posted by Leon | February 22, 2006 12:56 AM
hahah it's too funny reading all of your comments. No reason to get so defensive, the article makes a lot of good points.
Stop being so bias and stop crying when someone makes a negative comment about apple products. The fact is the fastest PCs out there run circles around the fastest Macs, accept it.
Maybe my kind is rare, but I like and own a Mac (G5), and I also love and own a Alienware PC (Area 51-modded), which is an amazing machine, far superior to the Mac in terms of performance. Both purchased within a month of each other.
In terms of performance, PC > Mac
But cry on, it's a Mac thing.
Posted by CRob | March 13, 2006 9:44 PM
Leon:
Yes you are right PC hardware is superior (assuming you forget those Quad Core G5... Power macs). But for me it is useless to have a monster PC running Windows XP..... The performance fades away when you keep running these useless antivirus and antispam apps all the time in parallel together with your precious business apps ... Oh and I forgot the excellent security that is offered under XP..., not to mention that you have to spend some hours to defrag the huge HDD... to gain some performance. Having a PC like that running XP is like letting a kid drive a ferrari.... For me PCs is a total waste of time.
Posted by Post-Prof | June 22, 2006 8:38 AM