Has Tim Cook lost the plot?

[Faustus]

I'm not really seeing much in there that wasn't discussed in this thread? The same technical points are in there, just without your brand obsession.

We've had underpowered base spec Macs for 30 years. 128k Macintosh, Original iMac, Core Solo Mac mini.

Quite an interesting post regarding SSD, HDD, Graphics and RAM which if you can follow the tech trail plus the already published bench marks you can readily understand how underpowered this particular iMac will be.

Where Caged gets the notion from that I implied the release of this model was the beginning of the end for Apple goodness only knows. Talk about a fertile mind. My view is that for price versus spec it's something of a lemon and I don't understand the logic behind it. Now if they had simply dropped the price of the current base model which isn't overly generous on spec then that I could understand.

 

[Faustus]

But that's not what you said in your opening post, and that's not what you've argued about throughout the thread.

Your thread title asked the question of whether Tim Cook had lost the plot, and your posts have been banging on about the Apple brand being devalued. Nobody is arguing that the specs aren't brilliant, that's all in your head. Where people are disagreeing is that it's actually an issue - when it just isn't. People will buy this and be happy with it. The people who don't want it will buy a higher specced model. The people who bang on about Apple not making an £800 tower that they can put their own video card in will continue to waste their lives building Hackintoshes and moaning on the internet.

You quite rightly say that I did ask the question concerning TC and My remarks are correct about devaluing the brand. That's because Apple has worked hard to build a reputation for perceived build quality combined with good specs. To then offer a cheaper poorly spec'd version of that product is in my opinion a strange decision. It does also risk devaluing the brand if customers aren't happy with performance. It is after all supposed to be a Desktop. We will have to wait and see regarding that.

That is however, a long way from claiming I said this is the end for Apple - which BTW I didn't.

 

[Faustus]

Caged writes......if it's quick enough to run Office applications and Safari then it is literally the perfect machine for a vast quantity of Apple customers.

There it is again - what is the source for your assertion?

 

[Faustus]

This is an absolutely pointless thing to argue about. Question the decision all you want, don't claim that somehow it's damaging the brand and that your opinion is fact.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't fit your definition of desktop, what matters is whether the people who buy it will be happy with it, and for a lot of people who don't have demanding requirements from a computer the answer will be yes. If they want to edit video all day long or deal with RAW photos then they will be advised to buy a different model. The possibility that someone could buy something that isn't suitable for their requirements because they just click "Add to cart" on the cheapest model isn't Apple's fault, and could happen with any other product they make.



What is there to source? A machine that capably runs Office and Safari will be perfect for people who's job involves using Office and Safari. I'm not sure where that statement needs backing up.

It is you that doesn't quite get it. I was questioning the wisdom of realeasing an iMac 'lite' for want of a better term.

You have now mixed it up and claim it's fine for the vast majority of Mac users. I asked how you could know this i.e. what is your source to make this assertion.

My initial question and your responses are not the same things at all.

 

[Faustus]

I completely forgot this is the author of the "the AirPort is pointless because it requires the owner to know a few things about their internet connection" thread. Says a lot I suppose.

Maybe one day Apple will stop forcing him to purchase their products at knife point and he can go back to a peaceful existence.

There you go again with the barbed comments. It does you no credit.

P.S I'm sat in my garden responding to these posts so not wasting the sunny day here.

 

[Faustus]

I'm sure you would find similar applications on computers of any description or operating system. It's something of a leap to claim that's all the majority (quantity is the wrong term) of people will use them for though.

 

[Faustus]

It's a good job I never made that leap then.

No just Apple users - apparently.

 

[Faustus]

IIRC it was about the Time Capsule, and you do describe these threads rather well.

Perhaps you should re-look at the thread in it's entirety to see what I had to say. It may also be of interest to you, or not, that a number of users have contacted me on the back of that thread to ask how to set up the TC/AE to act as sole router for their network.

The thanks I have received for those I assisted justifies the thread as far as I am concerned.

What is your contribution to these threads, apart from barbed comments that is?

 

[Faustus]

Faustus, honest question: why do these things seem to bother you so much? Or is it bait...

As an Apple shareholder I have a bona-fide interest.

 

[Faustus]

You like that word don't you?

Please explain how a thread where you ranted about how terrible the Time Capsule was as a product (before you tried one for yourself) is justified because you then helped people configure theirs off of the forum? Surely it would be more beneficial to everyone if that help had been public? I don't honestly believe that anyone asked you how to set up a Time Capsule after reading your thread seeing as there were around five other people reporting positive experiences doing exactly what you were claiming was a difficult setup to achieve (and a few people had posted exactly how to set one up in the thread), but whatever.

If you are concerned with what Apple are doing as a shareholder then there are avenues to voice those concerns. Dismissing opinions that differ to yours as being wrong in a discussion thread isn't one of those avenues.

I don't really care what you believe.

What a lot of users were doing was simply setting up the TC/AE as wireless extenders but using their existing routers which completely under utilises the product. The best option is to put your existing router into Bridge Mode (if your router allows it) and then hand all the traffic over to the TC/AE. If not then you need to purchase a modem to act as a gateway to the Internet. However, this is now old ground and been covered extensively before. I think it was only mentioned by a poster who had little to add to this debate other than causing mischief. Not for the first time either.

My argument was that for the average user such an exercise was not that simple.

As for the iMac - there are growing voices on a number of forums now voicing similar views to my own. These things take time for people to digest.

As a shareholder I am aware of my rights.

As for dismissing the views of others - isn't that what you have been guilty of all the way through this thread?

 

[Faustus]

The choice of ULT CPU gives Apple the marketing BS tag line of saving the planet.

They could have easily put a more powerful (+50%) cheaper CPU and cut $100 of the price.

ULT CPUs make sense in a laptop where you want the low power usage, not in a mains powered appliance. :S

Still they'll sell cause it's apple and if you want OSX your stuck with the limited range.

IMO anyone considering this would be better off getting a Mac mini, a VESA mac mini mount and spend the spare £350+ on a decent larger monitor.

We are on the same page - spot on.

 

[Faustus]

Not at all, I am dismissive of you presenting your opinions as facts and backing out of defending your statements.

People grumbling on forums is very different to someone purchasing the thing and having a poor user experience which can be solely laid at the feet of the CPU installed inside it. I still don't see how a cheaper option that is perfectly capable of doing exactly what huge numbers (note, I once again didn't say majority) of Mac users do on their machines is a bad thing.

So pray tell us all - what are these huge numbers. You keep quoting this scenario but we have yet to see some real figures.

It isn't just the CPU which may be responsible for poor performance either. The 5400 HDD won't help at all - remember the MBA has the SSD. No discrete graphics either. It's akin to opening the bonnet of your shiny BMW only to find a Robin Reliant engine. For a Desktop computer it simply isn't good enough.

 

[Faustus]

The mac bookair is an ultra light/thin/lowpower high battery life laptop, the iMac isn't. They shouldn't be using the same CPU.

Any discount they are getting on the $315 CPU, it's still going to be more than the faster cheaper chip at $225.
Pretty much any direct buyer from Intel is bulk, I doubt they give much away even if you buy millions.

Having a slow CPU may make sence for Apple as it keeps the more expensive versions the only option for a lot of buyers, the better CPU would affect those sales more, but it's not good for it's customers given they could have more for less money.

Still as we see in this thread, Apple customers will brown nose the company even when they aren't giving them a good deal.

You can't win with these guys. It seems pretty obvious some of them would buy sand whilst sat on a beach if it came in a package that said Apple.

Thank goodness there are some of us who are prepared to challenge Apple's marketing decisions. Having said that there are quite a few on the MR forum.

 

[Faustus]

From the guy who made the leap to questioning "Has Tim Cook lost the plot". Over the release of a cheaper iMac model. Brilliant.

Well your contribution has really made the thread come alive and provoked debate.

 

[Faustus]

Shouldn't you be concerned with your returns then?
Apple releasing a cheaper model, which they probably would make a larger margin on, is a good thing for them!

How do you not get that?

I suppose you've heard the phrase "one never gets a second chance to make a first impression".

 

[Faustus]

I never said it was a good choice, simply that they've obviously chosen the CPU for a reason.

What I don't understand, is why people are getting their knickers in a twist because it's got a slower CPU. It's the lowest spec iMac in the range, sold to business and education... No consumer will have to worry about buying this spec, and businesses can purchase the better ones if they require the extra oomph.

So the iMac listed for £899 on the Apple Store is not for sale to the public you say?

 

[Faustus]

A poster on another forum asked a question and received a response which encapsulates things perfectly.

The question being - so the latest cheaper iMac is simply a Desktop MBA? The response being NO! it's not as good as a MBA.

Says it all really.

 

[Faustus]

You are the epitome of the type of Apple fan boy that people hate.

That saying also makes little sense, Apple have already made their first impressions that's why they are able to sell something that isn't very good at a higher price. The brand is already established and the common buyer isn't going to know why it's not very good!

I don't think you've quite grasped matters. Never mind, let me explain. You buy something for the first time having heard great things about the brand. Said product turns out to be a bit of a lemon so consumer vows never to buy that brand again.

Simples.

 

[Faustus]

No, you REALLY don't understand.

The person who buys this machine is not looking for a computer to do huge resource hungry tasks. It's for someone who wants an Apple product at the lower end of the scale, they'll be using it for basic things. I.e. Safari and iTunes

It's not that complicated, you're just blinded by your fanboyism

How can you accuse me of being a fanboy when I'm criticising Apple's decision making? You also make the assumption that the person buying this machine knows exactly what they are looking for yet you provide not one shred of evidence to back up your assertion. Doh!

 

[Faustus]

I reckon people who want to jump to Apple ownership will have no clue and jump on this like numpties

Then having done so will find it's not got much muscle and has very little in the way of future proofing. At this point they will be hacked off at spending so much and getting so little and won't want to swell Apple's coffers ever again.

This is exactly why I started the thread in the first place - I consider it to be a short sighted move.