Waiting for the New Pitch
If you follow the Macaverse closely you are used to the new hardware introduction pitch. The drill is something as follows: At a MacWorld or some similar event a turtleneck bedecked Steve jobs appears. He rambles on about how great the iPod and iTunes are doing segues to how fantastic OS X is and how there are 94 billion native apps for OS X. Which is great information but, Mac rumors being what they are, is not what people really want to hear. Finally the moment comes that Mac fans have been waiting for and Steve reveals the big iron. Usually he rolls through the various engineering challenges, comments on the design and gets down to what everybody really wants to know: how fast it is (computer users are obsessed with speed). To illustrate the speed of the latest offering Steve generally sits in front of the machine and runs a few Photoshop filters. Then a chart pops up on the huge screen and shows that when presented with the same file the Mac manages to run the dadaize, fractal disgronificate, vector raster, and quantum renormalization filters .03 pico seconds faster than the souped-up PC next to it. Mac fans rejoice, they can truly own the fastest mass market PC.
The claims are, of course, highly debatable. The benchmarks were contrived to play specifically to the strength of the Altivec enhanced chips and most Mac users knew somewhere deep within the psyche that the truth was probably a little different from the computing nirvana presented by Steve. Still, and this is the crucial point, Mac users could earnestly opine (as they are wont to do) that they were using the best platform in both terms of hardware and software. Even those truly skeptical of Steve’s claims about peppiness could rely on 64 bitness or that two cool running G4’s were better than one Pentium spewing out heat like it was a tiny sun in a Dell enclosed star system. And that was really the point, not so much proving that Mac hardware was inherently faster but showing that the Mac was at least capable. In short Mac customers, now assured that they weren’t buying 10 year old performance at Apple price points, could devise their own reasons why the Mac hardware was obviously better.
Soon those days will be behind the Mac community and when the PowerPC leaves the building it is going to leave the door open for an entire new level of uncertainty. One thing that won’t change in all likelihood is Steve’s pitch, one way or another he will find some way to make it seem as though the Mac still holds onto some form of hardware superiority. It may be some obscure chip soldered on the motherboard or fan placement but his Steveness will find a way to make people believe that the Mac retains the lead in the hardware department. Those that feel compelled to believe will, but those with more of a skeptical bent will be wondering just how the new Mac is different from, say, a Dell Dimension.
The problem will be doubled for the high end users who demand maximum performance. They could buy, say, the Intel Powered Mac Tower or, since they want MAXIMUM POWER, maximum expandability and generally the latest and greatest they could pick up an Alienware and hack the thing to run OS X. Sure that kind of thing won’t happen often but if you have convinced yourself that you absolutely need to be on the cutting edge Apple, with their infrequent updates, won’t get you there. (How to tell if you need the latest and greatest computer: If someone else is willing to buy it for you OR you can expense it on your taxes). The community of Mac will be looking at, basically, just another box (though one that will artificially not run Windows).
Not that Apple computers made by contractors won’t have some appeal over the standard Wintel boxes. They will certainly look better than their PC rivals. If you look at the previously mentioned Alienware computers they look simply garish, Dells are the visual equivalent of Sominex, and generic white boxes are exactly that. The PC maker that comes closest to Apple in terms of design has to be Sony and while they may value style their computers look as though they are designed by engineers that occasionally enjoy going to an art museum. Apple’s machines, on the other hand, look like they are designed by artists who once read a memo from an engineer.
The trouble, predictably, does not end there. The performance of the OS will now be put sorely to the test. As much as I love Macs the response of the interface isn’t as snappy as Windows. (At this point let me note what follows is the purest of speculation, not really relevant to the current OS and not worth repeating.) Some folks would blame the chips and opine the difference will be negated with the move to Intel. I doubt that. I once used a 233 PIII (I think) at work and a 233 G3 Mac at home. The Mac was profoundly slower in things like opening a program (back before they were apps!) and other mundane tasks. Yet when it came to ripping a CD or calculating a very large spreadsheet (a process that took minutes or either machine) the Mac was just as fast if not faster. From that I gleaned that just because an interface feels a slower doesn’t mean that the machine is actually anymore hobbled when faced with an intensive computing task. Though, it must be said, since most users do very little CPU intensive processing it probably a wise idea to give them the illusion of raw speed when just poking around. Will OS X be as fast as Windows on the same machine? Time will tell.
Assuming there is not a huge gulf between the performance of OS X and Windows one is left wondering just how Steve will push the new Mac models. The best box to run OS X because of…. sameness? Or will Steve pull a rabbit out the hat? I can’t wait to find out.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Well, it’s been said time and time again that the only LEGAL way to run OS X will be on a Mac anyway. Whether that still applies in a few years remains to be seen but the portion of the computing population that will actually install their own operating system is very small in comparison to everyone else. So Apple loses a few sales to a demographic that probably wouldn’t have bought their hardware anyway, no big deal. In the end, the enterprise users, graphic designers, music producers, et. al. will still purchase Apple hardware as they have the most to risk by using hacked beige boxes.
I think the next several Apple ‘killer apps’ will be more and more splintered. On one hand you’ll have the Mac side of things, and let’s face it, once you’ve really taken a Power Mac or iMac apart there isn’t much right now that seperates it from a PC - they both use the same hard drives, the same RAM, the same graphics solutions, etc. so now only the CPU architecture remains different. On the other side you’ll see more and more consumer electronics devices. They’ve been successful so far in building up the Mac back to it’s original reputation, all the while distracting everyone else with iPod and retail stores. We computer guys think a little too much about the computer side of things when the reality of it is that the computer as we know it is being pushed further and further away. Eventually the consumer that just needs internet and email access probably won’t even use a PC or Mac to do it. Though it’s been the end-all plan for a long time it’s getting closer. I expect Apple to be ahead of the game there if the iPod is any indication of their expertise in the consumer electronics field.
I expect the announcements from Jobs in the future will have less to do with tech and more to do with usefullness and fun.
“Eventually the consumer that just needs internet and email access probably wont even use a PC or Mac to do it. Though its been the end-all plan for a long time its getting closer.”
If you are referring to a network, thin client or dummy box I don’t think we are ANY closer to it now than the other 72 times people believed it was right around the corner. Possibly in the coporate setting where it could be seen as cost effective move, but we are nowhere near being close to it for the average home user who is just now getting their heads around things like broadband.
“My apps are where? Centrally located? Run off the web? Can I still play Doom?”
The fact is the promise of so called “dummy boxes” is just that, a promise, and there is little reason to believe it is any closer to being found in the living rooms of the average computer user anytime soon.
“My apps are where? Centrally located? Run off the web? Can I still play Doom?”
Am I mistaken or are you joking that dickrichards2000’s comments coupled with yours imply these “internet-only dummy boxes” will replace computers?! That’d be silly. For a lot of reasons, a true personal computer will always have its place. Information accessing communication devices that don’t even need to resemble computers may or may not be a ways off, but I doubt they would ever replace computers as we know them now.
Oh, sure, people speculate and may even hope for the day when everything happens via the internet, but there’re so many problems with that right now. One of the biggest, at least here the in the US, is that the government and its related agencies have very different ideas compared to the software and hardware makers about how this all should work. Part of it, I think, is that there are too many old fashioned politicians who just don’t understand modern technology. We’re talking about men and women, views of the world already warped, over the age of 60 who are probably downright scared of computers and the internet. Yeah, I don’t entirely blame them - it’s daunting. Plus, as is the case with all good things, it gets abused. The internet is the perfect tool for sharing information and digital resources, yet the vast majority of it is occupied by pornography. Hmm.
Anyway… Good article. I really hope Apple doesn’t do something stupid to coincide with the switch to Intel. This move, hopefully coupled with some improvements to the very core of OS X (to make it snappier!), should boost Apple in the eyes of the world, but… Somehow I feel like something will go wrong. Maybe I’m just THAT pessimistic.
Not that Apple computers made by contractors won’t have some appeal over the standard Wintel boxes. They will certainly look better than their PC rivals.
I think that’s a safe bet. While I regard the OS comparison as a wash, Apple definitely wins out in the packaging dept. My brother’s G5 is the best designed case I’ve ever seen. A real work of art. Of course, it also cost three times as much as my beige box, but it is a thing of beauty nonetheless.
The question is how much importance the end-user puts on box design. And I think that really depends. We want our laptops to look nice, because, like our cars, we carry them around in public. We don’t want to be lugging around some boring or garish case. I’ve literally never seen an Alienware laptop in public. I’ve seen lots of Sony Vaios. Lots of iBooks and Powerbooks.
But for the home user, a computer is almost purely utilitarian, so the value of the outside design is nice but a luxury.
What Apple needs to focus on is getting prices down. The public regards the Mac as a luxury item, like a BMW, and to a large extent that’s by design. Steve Jobs believes in premium pricing, so there’s not much chance Mac prices will come down simply based on cheaper hardware.
But when MOST of the public shops for a car, they don’t head straight to the BMW dealership, even if there’s a car there that might be a great deal and perfect for them. They don’t even bother. And that’s a large problem for Apple. This isn’t like the iPod. The portable mp3 player is basically a luxury item across the board, so that perception actually benefits Apple. But a computer, like a car, is a necessity at this point. Being perceived as a high-end luxury item doesn’t help in that case.
Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but I haven’t actually seen a bakeoff for some time. (I do remember Steve + Phil’s Photoshop composites for Pixar movie posters, but that is years ago.)
*My personal* impression from recent keynotes has been that FEATURES are emphasized… For software: “Boom!” Spotlight searches, Dashboard widgets, iChat AV with that pretty woman on the video conference, etc. For hardware: Wi-Fi aka AirPort aka 802.11b was introduced to the world ON A MAC in 1999, with Steve passing a hoop over an iBook to show no wires while it was accessing the internet, and Phil Schiller jumped off a ledge (literally!), then the finger thin case of a PowerBook, the spectacle of a G5 case exposed, the petiteness of a Mac mini, etc.
I think we already have the answer on how future Mac products will be highlighted: features they can do that the others can’t, can’t yet, can’t do as easily, or can’t do with as nice a design.
Bakeoff numbers are used every time the powermac gets a speedbump, to wit:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
Although now that I think about it, when was the last time Steve did a bake off? Maybe the intro of the original G5 tower? Yet I suspect the bake off will resurface at some point.
I think we already have the answer on how future Mac products will be highlighted: features they can do that the others can’t, can’t yet, can’t do as easily, or can’t do with as nice a design.
Which is interesting since the bulk of my recent discussions with the Mac peanut gallery has been about how great the Mac is because of the things it can’t do, will never be able to do, or can’t do as easily.
My comments above had little to do with thin-clients, etc. and more to do with the inevitable (successful) combining of the PC and the consumer electronic set-top box. The success of Playstation 2 and Xbox would generally indicate that a majority of gamers don’t care about playing games on PC’s when a low-cost alternative presents itself. The success of the DVD player negates the need to hook a PC/Mac up to a TV for video playback. I could go on, but the point is that sooner or later (and it’s always later than I had hoped) someone will come up with the perfect living room computing device. Obviously anyone needing to do any serious work won’t be using them, but if we are indeed a culture of mass consumption then 95% of us really don’t need a desktop toolbox as most of us aren’t really creating anything anyway. I agree, the desktop PC will always have it’s place - at work or among the remaining percentage of users who “make things” with our computers - but the all-in-one living room multimedia/internet device is around the corner. Microsoft would tell you that it’s already here with Media Center, but that’s still far too “computer-ish”. But it’s out there somewhere, too many companies are spending too many billions of dollars in development for it not to arrive sooner or later.