Friday, December 31, 2004
The rumor and the damage done: what Apple is really going to announce at MacWorld Expo
And here I thought I was going to get to sit this one out.
So what if someone crafts an obviously false rumor about their favorite pet fantasy product and throws it out there for everyone to once again scoff at? Hey it must be late December again, right? It's not as if anyone's going to buy into something to laughably off the wall as the tired old "headless iMac" nonsense. So why one earth did I go and get so upset about the whole thing the other day?
Because I had a strong feeling of what was going to happen, and sadly, I've been proven correct. First of all, the Mac Web has completely lost its mind. Every single piece of commentary out there this week is nothing more than a rah-rah cheerleader rendition of why this fantasy product would be so great if Apple would just do it. Of course, no one has stopped to question how removing a $50 component brings the total price down by $300, and no one has stopped to ask whether PC users in the mood to Switch to the Mac would even be remotely interested in continuing to use their old monitor. Worse, the rah-rah cheerleaders have taken the delusionalism one step further, pointing out that this product is going to save everyone so much desk space by not having a monitor built into it. I don't know how far off their rocker someone has to be to not see that the mythical "headless iMac" would still have to have a monitor connected to it one way or the other. And, according to the rah-rah plan, the monitor that they're going to connect to is going to be the same seventeen inch CRT that apparently every PC on earth has lying around the house in abundance. So tell me again how much desk space is going to be saved by ditching the eMac and instead offering the customer have an extra CPU box sitting next to a monitor that is itself as large as the eMac?
It's times like this that the Mac Web shows itself to be a little left of reality. Buncha fantasizing geeks writing commentary for consumption by regular Mac users, under the mistaken assumption that regular Mac users have the same wants and needs as the tiny geek minority who publish these sites. I suppose that's why I've spent the past few days receiving reader email thanking me for being the only one to stand up and toss a bucket of reality on the fantasy fire. Not that there haven't been a few angry email as well, with a few people going to new lengths to try to dream up a few actual niche uses for their fantasy product. Since their product has no actual potential users, I guess they feel they have to go and invent some in order to help make their case. But the vast majority of responses I received were of the "thank you" nature, which tells me that there are a whole lot of people out there who are disgusted with the way the Mac Web acts in these situations as I am.
So between now and MacWorld, the Mac Web will be absolutely worthless as far as finding decent commentary to read. And worse, even after MacWorld is over, we'll have to tolerate a week or two of those pained "Why didn't Apple give us our headless iMac?" articles. There'll even be new fake rumors spread, this time that the fantasy product is going to be launched at AppleExpo Paris or whatever major Mac-related event comes next. I really think there are some people out there who would give their lives in order to make their headless iMac fantasy come true. And that's just pathetic.
Thankfully, such types seem to be rather comfortably in the minority. But the bottom line is that we're left with a worthless Mac Web for the next month, but that's just the beginning of the problems. You see, because the "headless iMac" rumor sounds good in theory until you actually spend five minutes dissecting it, the rumor is getting picked up rather quickly by mainstream news sites. Being reported as a done deal, for that matter. So now we've got these false expectations crawling all over the news wires, and the whole world is now under the false expectation that this false rumor is actually going to happen. And unbelievably, some idiot Wall Street analyst has gone and reported it as fact, meaning that the fate of Apple's stock price now hinges on this BS rumor as well.
Now do you begin to see why the whole thing got me so pissed off the other day? Look at what we're left with here. All the discussion now centers around a theoretical product that doesn't exist, never will exist, never had any chance of ever existing...and yet now, this non-existent entity is the center of attention of the platform. So guess what happens when Steve Jobs gets up there on stage in January and doesn't launch this non-existent product? That'll be the story -- that the headless iMac didn't happen. And what about all the actual, real-world, legitimate products that he does announce that day? They'll either be swept under the rug entirely, or they'll be pooh-poohed in comparison to a fantasy product that never existed.
In other words, this false rumor has quite possibly already destroyed any chance that Apple had of making a splash at MacWorld Expo.
Let me tell you what will be announced at MacWorld with regards to the low-end of the Macintosh line. It's not all that difficult to figure out. The eMac already is the "Switcher vehicle" that the delusionals keep talking about, they just don't know it. In delusionland, the eMac is being rejected by potential Switchers because it has a built-in monitor. But in reality, Windows users are already Switching to the eMac, in droves for that matter. All you have to do is stick your head outside the delusionland bubble for a few minutes in order to get a whiff of just how many people have already switched. Or maybe I just dreamed it when I read about switcher after switcher after switcher in a Wall Street Journal article the other day. The Switch campaign was a massive success, kids, it just took some time to develop (which by the way, is exactly what I predicted way back when).
So as the Switch campaign continues to progress, the eMac will continue to be the vehicle on the low end, and will likely evolve along with it. But since in reality the monitor is a complete non-issue among potential Switchers on the low end, the eMac will continue to have a built-in monitor. Duh. There will be changes, though:
1) The price will fall. The components of the eMac are sufficiently standard-fare that Apple's cost of mass-producing the machine has to be gradually falling, which means that Apple will be in a position to once again drop the price of the eMac line. Once upon a time, the base eMac sold for $1099, and now it can be had for a mere $799. At MacWorld, it's entirely feasible that Apple will lower its price to $699, or if Apple wants to give up its margins entirely, perhaps even $599.
But since the rumored fantasy product was supposed to clock in at $499, the breakthrough pricing of the eMac will look lame in comparison.
2) The design will evolve. You'll recall that the eMac was originally designed only for the education market, meaning that design aesthetic was not part of the original equation. For that matter, it's even possible that the eMac was made to look overly non-cool in comparison to the flat-panel iMac, so that potential buyers would lean toward the iMac. But now that Apple does have so many more potential Switchers lined up (thanks to the iPod, viruses, etc.), you might see Apple decide to redesign the eMac to make it look more palatable to potential Switchers. Not that there's a whole lot you can do with a built-in 17 inch CRT monitor, mind you, but Jonathan Ive has been known to work design wonders with even greater obstacles. The only thing we know for sure is that the new eMac design will continue to have a built-in monitor.
But since the rumored fantasy product was supposed to look infinitely cool (and even alleviate the need for the user to have a monitor on their desk at all), the stylish design of the new eMac will look lame in comparison.
3) The eMac will continue to carry the same software bundle as the G5 iMac. I don't know if there's a bigger "duh" than this one. If iLife '05 is ready to go at MacWorld, then the new eMac will come bundled with it. If the successor to AppleWorks 6 is ready, then it's the same story. But if not, then the new eMac will continue to come bundled with AppleWorks 6. Despite the continual bashing by Mac Elitists who are trying to look cool, AppleWorks 6 is a damn fine product. I use it every day, and if you were smart, you would too. But in any case it's not an issue for potential Switchers, because they're used to using absolute garbage like Microsoft Works, meaning that they're not going to care what they end up with on their new Mac. Those who want to waste money and frustration by using MS Word on their Macs will continue to do so, and the rest will be pleasantly surprised to find that AppleWorks 6 is a whole lot better word processor than anything they've ever used.
But the rumored fantasy product, on the other hand, is guaranteed to come with the successor to AppleWorks 6, whether such a successor exists or not. Apparently, if Apple would just give in and build a headless iMac, then AppleWorks 7 would just magically drop into their lap to go along with it. And so would iWorks, and iWork, and Document, and all the other supposed next-generation Apple word processors. Their existence all depends on Apple selling a Mac without a built-in monitor, and don't you forget it.
So when MacWorld Expo comes around next month and Apple unveils a new eMac with a breakthrough $599 price tag, a more stylish exterior, and the same better-than-anything-you-see-on-a-PC software bundle as ever, the whole thing is going to be bashed mercilessly -- by the geek-fueled Mac Web sites who have no idea what a regular Mac user wants, by the mainstream press who got caught up in the rush of an obviously false rumor, and even by Wall Street. It's going to be ugly. And it's going to totally obscure what should have been a banner day in Macintosh history.
It's not that PC users won't get word of the new-and-improved eMac, and it's not that they won't continue to Switch to the Mac at ever-increasing levels that even the most skeptical pundits will no longer be able to ignore. It's going to be an amazing year for the Macintosh, and being a Mac user in 2005 is going to be even more magical than ever.
But you have to figure that, to some extent at least, Apple's ability to get its message out to the right people will be hampered by the fact that the company's real products will have to spend 2005 competing against rumored fake ones.
And when you stop and realize that there will likely be a few less Switchers in 2005 as a direct result of this phony "headless iMac" rumor, you'll want the dweeb who fabricated it hanging from a tree as badly as I do.
And here I thought I was going to get to sit this one out.
So what if someone crafts an obviously false rumor about their favorite pet fantasy product and throws it out there for everyone to once again scoff at? Hey it must be late December again, right? It's not as if anyone's going to buy into something to laughably off the wall as the tired old "headless iMac" nonsense. So why one earth did I go and get so upset about the whole thing the other day?
Because I had a strong feeling of what was going to happen, and sadly, I've been proven correct. First of all, the Mac Web has completely lost its mind. Every single piece of commentary out there this week is nothing more than a rah-rah cheerleader rendition of why this fantasy product would be so great if Apple would just do it. Of course, no one has stopped to question how removing a $50 component brings the total price down by $300, and no one has stopped to ask whether PC users in the mood to Switch to the Mac would even be remotely interested in continuing to use their old monitor. Worse, the rah-rah cheerleaders have taken the delusionalism one step further, pointing out that this product is going to save everyone so much desk space by not having a monitor built into it. I don't know how far off their rocker someone has to be to not see that the mythical "headless iMac" would still have to have a monitor connected to it one way or the other. And, according to the rah-rah plan, the monitor that they're going to connect to is going to be the same seventeen inch CRT that apparently every PC on earth has lying around the house in abundance. So tell me again how much desk space is going to be saved by ditching the eMac and instead offering the customer have an extra CPU box sitting next to a monitor that is itself as large as the eMac?
It's times like this that the Mac Web shows itself to be a little left of reality. Buncha fantasizing geeks writing commentary for consumption by regular Mac users, under the mistaken assumption that regular Mac users have the same wants and needs as the tiny geek minority who publish these sites. I suppose that's why I've spent the past few days receiving reader email thanking me for being the only one to stand up and toss a bucket of reality on the fantasy fire. Not that there haven't been a few angry email as well, with a few people going to new lengths to try to dream up a few actual niche uses for their fantasy product. Since their product has no actual potential users, I guess they feel they have to go and invent some in order to help make their case. But the vast majority of responses I received were of the "thank you" nature, which tells me that there are a whole lot of people out there who are disgusted with the way the Mac Web acts in these situations as I am.
So between now and MacWorld, the Mac Web will be absolutely worthless as far as finding decent commentary to read. And worse, even after MacWorld is over, we'll have to tolerate a week or two of those pained "Why didn't Apple give us our headless iMac?" articles. There'll even be new fake rumors spread, this time that the fantasy product is going to be launched at AppleExpo Paris or whatever major Mac-related event comes next. I really think there are some people out there who would give their lives in order to make their headless iMac fantasy come true. And that's just pathetic.
Thankfully, such types seem to be rather comfortably in the minority. But the bottom line is that we're left with a worthless Mac Web for the next month, but that's just the beginning of the problems. You see, because the "headless iMac" rumor sounds good in theory until you actually spend five minutes dissecting it, the rumor is getting picked up rather quickly by mainstream news sites. Being reported as a done deal, for that matter. So now we've got these false expectations crawling all over the news wires, and the whole world is now under the false expectation that this false rumor is actually going to happen. And unbelievably, some idiot Wall Street analyst has gone and reported it as fact, meaning that the fate of Apple's stock price now hinges on this BS rumor as well.
Now do you begin to see why the whole thing got me so pissed off the other day? Look at what we're left with here. All the discussion now centers around a theoretical product that doesn't exist, never will exist, never had any chance of ever existing...and yet now, this non-existent entity is the center of attention of the platform. So guess what happens when Steve Jobs gets up there on stage in January and doesn't launch this non-existent product? That'll be the story -- that the headless iMac didn't happen. And what about all the actual, real-world, legitimate products that he does announce that day? They'll either be swept under the rug entirely, or they'll be pooh-poohed in comparison to a fantasy product that never existed.
In other words, this false rumor has quite possibly already destroyed any chance that Apple had of making a splash at MacWorld Expo.
Let me tell you what will be announced at MacWorld with regards to the low-end of the Macintosh line. It's not all that difficult to figure out. The eMac already is the "Switcher vehicle" that the delusionals keep talking about, they just don't know it. In delusionland, the eMac is being rejected by potential Switchers because it has a built-in monitor. But in reality, Windows users are already Switching to the eMac, in droves for that matter. All you have to do is stick your head outside the delusionland bubble for a few minutes in order to get a whiff of just how many people have already switched. Or maybe I just dreamed it when I read about switcher after switcher after switcher in a Wall Street Journal article the other day. The Switch campaign was a massive success, kids, it just took some time to develop (which by the way, is exactly what I predicted way back when).
So as the Switch campaign continues to progress, the eMac will continue to be the vehicle on the low end, and will likely evolve along with it. But since in reality the monitor is a complete non-issue among potential Switchers on the low end, the eMac will continue to have a built-in monitor. Duh. There will be changes, though:
1) The price will fall. The components of the eMac are sufficiently standard-fare that Apple's cost of mass-producing the machine has to be gradually falling, which means that Apple will be in a position to once again drop the price of the eMac line. Once upon a time, the base eMac sold for $1099, and now it can be had for a mere $799. At MacWorld, it's entirely feasible that Apple will lower its price to $699, or if Apple wants to give up its margins entirely, perhaps even $599.
But since the rumored fantasy product was supposed to clock in at $499, the breakthrough pricing of the eMac will look lame in comparison.
2) The design will evolve. You'll recall that the eMac was originally designed only for the education market, meaning that design aesthetic was not part of the original equation. For that matter, it's even possible that the eMac was made to look overly non-cool in comparison to the flat-panel iMac, so that potential buyers would lean toward the iMac. But now that Apple does have so many more potential Switchers lined up (thanks to the iPod, viruses, etc.), you might see Apple decide to redesign the eMac to make it look more palatable to potential Switchers. Not that there's a whole lot you can do with a built-in 17 inch CRT monitor, mind you, but Jonathan Ive has been known to work design wonders with even greater obstacles. The only thing we know for sure is that the new eMac design will continue to have a built-in monitor.
But since the rumored fantasy product was supposed to look infinitely cool (and even alleviate the need for the user to have a monitor on their desk at all), the stylish design of the new eMac will look lame in comparison.
3) The eMac will continue to carry the same software bundle as the G5 iMac. I don't know if there's a bigger "duh" than this one. If iLife '05 is ready to go at MacWorld, then the new eMac will come bundled with it. If the successor to AppleWorks 6 is ready, then it's the same story. But if not, then the new eMac will continue to come bundled with AppleWorks 6. Despite the continual bashing by Mac Elitists who are trying to look cool, AppleWorks 6 is a damn fine product. I use it every day, and if you were smart, you would too. But in any case it's not an issue for potential Switchers, because they're used to using absolute garbage like Microsoft Works, meaning that they're not going to care what they end up with on their new Mac. Those who want to waste money and frustration by using MS Word on their Macs will continue to do so, and the rest will be pleasantly surprised to find that AppleWorks 6 is a whole lot better word processor than anything they've ever used.
But the rumored fantasy product, on the other hand, is guaranteed to come with the successor to AppleWorks 6, whether such a successor exists or not. Apparently, if Apple would just give in and build a headless iMac, then AppleWorks 7 would just magically drop into their lap to go along with it. And so would iWorks, and iWork, and Document, and all the other supposed next-generation Apple word processors. Their existence all depends on Apple selling a Mac without a built-in monitor, and don't you forget it.
So when MacWorld Expo comes around next month and Apple unveils a new eMac with a breakthrough $599 price tag, a more stylish exterior, and the same better-than-anything-you-see-on-a-PC software bundle as ever, the whole thing is going to be bashed mercilessly -- by the geek-fueled Mac Web sites who have no idea what a regular Mac user wants, by the mainstream press who got caught up in the rush of an obviously false rumor, and even by Wall Street. It's going to be ugly. And it's going to totally obscure what should have been a banner day in Macintosh history.
It's not that PC users won't get word of the new-and-improved eMac, and it's not that they won't continue to Switch to the Mac at ever-increasing levels that even the most skeptical pundits will no longer be able to ignore. It's going to be an amazing year for the Macintosh, and being a Mac user in 2005 is going to be even more magical than ever.
But you have to figure that, to some extent at least, Apple's ability to get its message out to the right people will be hampered by the fact that the company's real products will have to spend 2005 competing against rumored fake ones.
And when you stop and realize that there will likely be a few less Switchers in 2005 as a direct result of this phony "headless iMac" rumor, you'll want the dweeb who fabricated it hanging from a tree as badly as I do.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
More headless iMac nonsense: the last refuge of the delusional
Well, it looks like someone has gone and created yet another obviously false rumor claiming that the mythical "headless iMac" is just around the corner. Let's see if this one meets the criteria for being placed in the looney bin with all the others:
The rumored product has specs identical to the eMac except that the $50 monitor has been removed, and this alone has caused the product's price to magically drop by $300?
Check.
The rumored product is going to be a bargain-basement, entry-level computer that is going to appeal to Switchers who have fancy expensive monitors, despite the fact that anyone who owns a $1000 monitor wouldn't be caught dead connecting it to a $499 computer?
Check.
The rumored product is going to appeal to Switchers who have old beat-up piece of junk monitors left over from their aging PC, despite the fact that a quick sampling of any PC users out in the real world who are in this situation will reveal that are absolutely, completely, totally uninterested in continuing to use their old piece of crap monitor?
Check.
The rumor itself was so clumsily created that it commits obvious errors such as claiming that the rumored product is going to come with a "special" new version of iLife (sans iDVD) that just happens to be the exact same version of iLife that has shipped on every non-SuperDrive Macintosh computer sold in the past year?
Check.
You want to give me a late Christmas present? Let me find the delusional idiot who made up this rumor hanging from my tree when I walk out my front door tomorrow morning.
There's nothing lamer than finding out that there is zero real-world interest in your fantasy product, and then making one last-ditch attempt to somehow drum up real-world interest for it,by making up and spreading a false rumor about its impending launch. And yet it keeps happening over and over again, every time Apple is about to launch real products. You know, that ones that actually have a market? The ones that Windows users are already switching to in droves?
But don't let reality intrude on your little "headless iMac" fantasy, as you're not even done making up cute pet names for your fantasy product. This time you're calling it the "iMac mini," next year you'll be calling it the "U2 Headless iMac Special Edition." But no matter how many names you might make up for your fantasy product, and no matter how many times you spread false rumors about its impending launch, you're not going to change the fact that it's an infinitely bad idea that has absolutely no potential market whatsoever.
Have fun with your little ongoing fantasy game if you must, but you'd better keep it out of my house. If you write in to make one last- ditch effort to get me to change my stance about the stupidest product idea in Apple history, then I'm going to assume that you're the one who started the latest false rumor, and just might be you who's hanging from my tree in the morning.
But all death threats aside, I'm sitting this one out. Been down this road on this issue too many times, and I'm afraid I just don't have the time to waste this time around. Someone please wake me when Apple announces the real products for 2005. In the mean time, I'll be scrounging around to find the amount of rope that's going to be required in order to take care of business tomorrow morning.
Well, it looks like someone has gone and created yet another obviously false rumor claiming that the mythical "headless iMac" is just around the corner. Let's see if this one meets the criteria for being placed in the looney bin with all the others:
The rumored product has specs identical to the eMac except that the $50 monitor has been removed, and this alone has caused the product's price to magically drop by $300?
Check.
The rumored product is going to be a bargain-basement, entry-level computer that is going to appeal to Switchers who have fancy expensive monitors, despite the fact that anyone who owns a $1000 monitor wouldn't be caught dead connecting it to a $499 computer?
Check.
The rumored product is going to appeal to Switchers who have old beat-up piece of junk monitors left over from their aging PC, despite the fact that a quick sampling of any PC users out in the real world who are in this situation will reveal that are absolutely, completely, totally uninterested in continuing to use their old piece of crap monitor?
Check.
The rumor itself was so clumsily created that it commits obvious errors such as claiming that the rumored product is going to come with a "special" new version of iLife (sans iDVD) that just happens to be the exact same version of iLife that has shipped on every non-SuperDrive Macintosh computer sold in the past year?
Check.
You want to give me a late Christmas present? Let me find the delusional idiot who made up this rumor hanging from my tree when I walk out my front door tomorrow morning.
There's nothing lamer than finding out that there is zero real-world interest in your fantasy product, and then making one last-ditch attempt to somehow drum up real-world interest for it,by making up and spreading a false rumor about its impending launch. And yet it keeps happening over and over again, every time Apple is about to launch real products. You know, that ones that actually have a market? The ones that Windows users are already switching to in droves?
But don't let reality intrude on your little "headless iMac" fantasy, as you're not even done making up cute pet names for your fantasy product. This time you're calling it the "iMac mini," next year you'll be calling it the "U2 Headless iMac Special Edition." But no matter how many names you might make up for your fantasy product, and no matter how many times you spread false rumors about its impending launch, you're not going to change the fact that it's an infinitely bad idea that has absolutely no potential market whatsoever.
Have fun with your little ongoing fantasy game if you must, but you'd better keep it out of my house. If you write in to make one last- ditch effort to get me to change my stance about the stupidest product idea in Apple history, then I'm going to assume that you're the one who started the latest false rumor, and just might be you who's hanging from my tree in the morning.
But all death threats aside, I'm sitting this one out. Been down this road on this issue too many times, and I'm afraid I just don't have the time to waste this time around. Someone please wake me when Apple announces the real products for 2005. In the mean time, I'll be scrounging around to find the amount of rope that's going to be required in order to take care of business tomorrow morning.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
The obligatory holiday entry that's tangentially Mac-related at best
I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is the point where most Mac websites post a story about their holiday experiences that just happens to be vaguely Mac-related, so they can create the appearance that their site is still in full-publishing mode over the holidays when, in fact, it is not. But sorry, I'm just not that kind of guy.
Oh, wait. What? You actually want one of those cheesy, tangentially Mac-related holiday stories?
Alright, let me see what I can whip up...
I had pegged this one as being a fun Christmas, in the hopes of making up for last year. It's not that last year's Christmas wasn't fun, it's just that the gifts I gave out were, uh. yeah...no words. You see, I'd just left my day job behind a month earlier, LoadPod wasn't on the radar, even the iPod Garage was still two weeks away from launching, and I was getting by on the advertising revenues from -- you guessed it -- this site. As I said, the gifts I gave out were...yeah.
So this was the year to make up for last year, and while I wasn't exactly handing out a new car to everyone I know, I think I did OK, and I figure I'm finally off the hook for the debacle that was 2003. Having immediate family in two places meant figuring out travel plans as always, but things seemed to fall in place well enough this year. I would spend Christmas Eve at home, then hit the road Christmas morning and arrive just in time to settle in for Christmas dinner down south.
My plans were in a bit of trouble when I woke up Christmas Eve morning and had what I feared were flu symptoms. This would derail everything, and I wasn't having any of it. So I spent all morning in bed, and by late afternoon when it was time to rock and roll, I just shook off whatever it was, and it decided to mostly cooperate, as I don't think anyone caught on that evening. Lots and lots of fun. So many presents under the tree, you could barely navigate the living room -- and that's not counting the dozen or so warm bodies stuffed into the room as well. I've actually got little kids around me that I can give gifts to now. Fun stuff.
But my big fear was that I would then wake up Christmas morning and not be in any kind of condition to spend several hours fighting holiday traffic. No worries, though, as I felt just fine, and traffic was easier than I'd expected, and dinner was fun (as was watching the Heat beat Kobe even with Shaq on the bench).
Today I've been conducting probably too much business for my own good (on a Sunday, no less), and certainly been consuming too much leftovers for my own good (seeming to have totally forgotten how I'd physically felt just 36 hours earlier). Tonight I go to the final Miami Dolphins home game of the season, and although it's been the worst season in Dolphins history, things are looking up both in the fact that their young quarterback is finally starting to play well, and in the fact that they just hired a new head coach last night for next year. Most highly-recruited coach out there, no less. Said no to five other pro teams, said yes to the Dolphins. I guess if he thinks things can get better for the team next year, then so do I.
Sometime this afternoon, I've got to publish this week's iPod Garage Q&A column. Tomorrow, at some point in the day, I'll head home. Tomorrow night, I'll write Garage Music. So much for holiday break. :)
Oh, right, I was supposed to make this whole story somehow tangentially relevant to Apple or the Mac. Well, I've had my PowerBook with me the whole time, and I'm writing this on it right now...does that count?
Happy Holidays,
Bill
I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is the point where most Mac websites post a story about their holiday experiences that just happens to be vaguely Mac-related, so they can create the appearance that their site is still in full-publishing mode over the holidays when, in fact, it is not. But sorry, I'm just not that kind of guy.
Oh, wait. What? You actually want one of those cheesy, tangentially Mac-related holiday stories?
Alright, let me see what I can whip up...
I had pegged this one as being a fun Christmas, in the hopes of making up for last year. It's not that last year's Christmas wasn't fun, it's just that the gifts I gave out were, uh. yeah...no words. You see, I'd just left my day job behind a month earlier, LoadPod wasn't on the radar, even the iPod Garage was still two weeks away from launching, and I was getting by on the advertising revenues from -- you guessed it -- this site. As I said, the gifts I gave out were...yeah.
So this was the year to make up for last year, and while I wasn't exactly handing out a new car to everyone I know, I think I did OK, and I figure I'm finally off the hook for the debacle that was 2003. Having immediate family in two places meant figuring out travel plans as always, but things seemed to fall in place well enough this year. I would spend Christmas Eve at home, then hit the road Christmas morning and arrive just in time to settle in for Christmas dinner down south.
My plans were in a bit of trouble when I woke up Christmas Eve morning and had what I feared were flu symptoms. This would derail everything, and I wasn't having any of it. So I spent all morning in bed, and by late afternoon when it was time to rock and roll, I just shook off whatever it was, and it decided to mostly cooperate, as I don't think anyone caught on that evening. Lots and lots of fun. So many presents under the tree, you could barely navigate the living room -- and that's not counting the dozen or so warm bodies stuffed into the room as well. I've actually got little kids around me that I can give gifts to now. Fun stuff.
But my big fear was that I would then wake up Christmas morning and not be in any kind of condition to spend several hours fighting holiday traffic. No worries, though, as I felt just fine, and traffic was easier than I'd expected, and dinner was fun (as was watching the Heat beat Kobe even with Shaq on the bench).
Today I've been conducting probably too much business for my own good (on a Sunday, no less), and certainly been consuming too much leftovers for my own good (seeming to have totally forgotten how I'd physically felt just 36 hours earlier). Tonight I go to the final Miami Dolphins home game of the season, and although it's been the worst season in Dolphins history, things are looking up both in the fact that their young quarterback is finally starting to play well, and in the fact that they just hired a new head coach last night for next year. Most highly-recruited coach out there, no less. Said no to five other pro teams, said yes to the Dolphins. I guess if he thinks things can get better for the team next year, then so do I.
Sometime this afternoon, I've got to publish this week's iPod Garage Q&A column. Tomorrow, at some point in the day, I'll head home. Tomorrow night, I'll write Garage Music. So much for holiday break. :)
Oh, right, I was supposed to make this whole story somehow tangentially relevant to Apple or the Mac. Well, I've had my PowerBook with me the whole time, and I'm writing this on it right now...does that count?
Happy Holidays,
Bill
Friday, December 17, 2004
This post brought to you from an iPod mini
Heh, just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Actually, I'm on a G5 iMac here, and I've got to tell you, it's an interesting concept, taking a giant laptop screen and building it into a machine that isn't a laptop. Perfect, I suppose, for those who have no desire for portability. For me, though, I suppose it's merely proof that we're at least half-way to seeing a G5 PowerBook. How do I figure? Well, if they've managed to cram a G5 into a two-inch-deep enclosure, then you have to figure that they're halfway to cramming it into a the one-inch-deep enclosure of a PowerBook. Ah well, we'll get there when we get there.
Speaking of the iPod mini, every time I pick up one and play with it, I once again marvel at just how tiny and (especially) how weightless it is. I swear, if they made a mini that held thirty gigabytes of music, I just might own one right now. Let's see, the mini hit four gigabytes last January, and is rumored to hit five gigabytes next January, so at that rate, we should see the thirty gigabyte iPod mini by the year 2029 at the very latest.
Well, I'd better get out of here before I spend anything, and go do some real holiday shopping for, you know, other people. You see, I knew I had six blog entries in me this week, I just had no idea I'd save them all up and then spit them all out within a thirty-minute period. See you soon...
Heh, just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Actually, I'm on a G5 iMac here, and I've got to tell you, it's an interesting concept, taking a giant laptop screen and building it into a machine that isn't a laptop. Perfect, I suppose, for those who have no desire for portability. For me, though, I suppose it's merely proof that we're at least half-way to seeing a G5 PowerBook. How do I figure? Well, if they've managed to cram a G5 into a two-inch-deep enclosure, then you have to figure that they're halfway to cramming it into a the one-inch-deep enclosure of a PowerBook. Ah well, we'll get there when we get there.
Speaking of the iPod mini, every time I pick up one and play with it, I once again marvel at just how tiny and (especially) how weightless it is. I swear, if they made a mini that held thirty gigabytes of music, I just might own one right now. Let's see, the mini hit four gigabytes last January, and is rumored to hit five gigabytes next January, so at that rate, we should see the thirty gigabyte iPod mini by the year 2029 at the very latest.
Well, I'd better get out of here before I spend anything, and go do some real holiday shopping for, you know, other people. You see, I knew I had six blog entries in me this week, I just had no idea I'd save them all up and then spit them all out within a thirty-minute period. See you soon...
This post brought to you from an eMac
Did I mention this store is crowded?
Also, so much for the theory that you can't find an iPod anywhere. This store, for one, has more than four hundred iPods in stock -- and that's just the inventory that's on display. I guess they're going for the "can't walk past a stack of iPods without buying onw" theory. Can't begin to imagine how many more thousands of iPods they have in the back room. So kids, if you're looking to buy an iPod before Christmas and you can't find one, rev up the car and head toward the Orlando Apple Store.
Just don't tell them I sent you.
Have I mentioned lately just how much I love the eMac? Pity that at 55 pounds, it's at least 49 pounds too heavy to be very functional as a laptop. The screen is the right size, the right resolution, the price is certainly right, it's plenty fast, comes with everything you need...and yet it weighs as much as ten iBooks. Oh well, I guess you can't have everything. I think maybe someday I'll buy an eMac just to own one, despite maybe not having much use for it...
Did I mention this store is crowded?
Also, so much for the theory that you can't find an iPod anywhere. This store, for one, has more than four hundred iPods in stock -- and that's just the inventory that's on display. I guess they're going for the "can't walk past a stack of iPods without buying onw" theory. Can't begin to imagine how many more thousands of iPods they have in the back room. So kids, if you're looking to buy an iPod before Christmas and you can't find one, rev up the car and head toward the Orlando Apple Store.
Just don't tell them I sent you.
Have I mentioned lately just how much I love the eMac? Pity that at 55 pounds, it's at least 49 pounds too heavy to be very functional as a laptop. The screen is the right size, the right resolution, the price is certainly right, it's plenty fast, comes with everything you need...and yet it weighs as much as ten iBooks. Oh well, I guess you can't have everything. I think maybe someday I'll buy an eMac just to own one, despite maybe not having much use for it...
This post brought to you from a 30 inch Cinema Display
I was tempted to call this one "brought to you from a wide-screen television"...but I suppose this is technically still a computer monitor after all. At 2560x1600 pixels, though, it's like getting lost in a really large forest. Stretch a Safari browser window to full-screen, and the actual content of the page takes up no more than one-third of it, with the rest just being empty space. Kind of pointless, until you realize that you could easily have three appliations at the front of your screeen, full-size, with all palettes visible, all at once.
One little problem: at $3499, it costs as much as three iBooks -- and that's just the screen. Forget about being able to afford a computer to go with it...
I was tempted to call this one "brought to you from a wide-screen television"...but I suppose this is technically still a computer monitor after all. At 2560x1600 pixels, though, it's like getting lost in a really large forest. Stretch a Safari browser window to full-screen, and the actual content of the page takes up no more than one-third of it, with the rest just being empty space. Kind of pointless, until you realize that you could easily have three appliations at the front of your screeen, full-size, with all palettes visible, all at once.
One little problem: at $3499, it costs as much as three iBooks -- and that's just the screen. Forget about being able to afford a computer to go with it...
This post brought to you from an Aluminum PowerBook (12 inch)
Hard to believe that just two years ago, I was lusting over the 12 inch PowerBook as if it were going to be my next Mac. At this point it strikes me as merely a silver iBook with a handful of geek features I don't need, and a much hefiter price tag. Still looks pretty darm sleek, though. Strangely enough, my wrists aren't falling off this thing quite as badly as they do on the 12 inch iBook. Perhaps it's because this machine looks cooler? Can't really say.
Move along Bill, nothing to see here.
Hard to believe that just two years ago, I was lusting over the 12 inch PowerBook as if it were going to be my next Mac. At this point it strikes me as merely a silver iBook with a handful of geek features I don't need, and a much hefiter price tag. Still looks pretty darm sleek, though. Strangely enough, my wrists aren't falling off this thing quite as badly as they do on the 12 inch iBook. Perhaps it's because this machine looks cooler? Can't really say.
Move along Bill, nothing to see here.
This post brought to you from a 14 inch G4 iBook
Ah, much better. That's right, by virtue of having logged out and moved three feet to the left, I'm now typing on a laptop that actually has room for my wrists. Actually, I kinda like this here 14 inch G4 iBook. I've heard a lot of pundits say that they don't understand why this model exists, and my theory was that is was for those people who wanted to buy an iBook but just couldn't live with a 12 inch screen. In other words, those with poor reading vision. But now I think I've found the real reason people buy this model: your hands don't cramp up every third sentence.
This machine, too, has a flaw that just might be fatal -- at least for me. Because while the larger 14 inch screen means that the base of the laptop is large enough to actually hold my wrists, the screen itself doesn't actually hold anything more than the 12 inch model. They both have the exact same 1024x768 resolution. For me, the larger screen would just be waste, I think. Paying for all that extra LCD just to have room to fit my wrists on the machine would seem like a wasteful crime. Well, perhaps. But everything seems way too big on this screen, and there's really no way to make it smaller. If the 14 inch G4 iBook had an option for a 1200x900 screen resolution (even as a build-to-order unit), I think it would be ideal for me. But alas, getting any kind of design work done in 1024x768 gives me some mental cramps, if not wrist cramps. Still, it's a nice machine -- I'm surprised it's not more popular than it is.
Ah, much better. That's right, by virtue of having logged out and moved three feet to the left, I'm now typing on a laptop that actually has room for my wrists. Actually, I kinda like this here 14 inch G4 iBook. I've heard a lot of pundits say that they don't understand why this model exists, and my theory was that is was for those people who wanted to buy an iBook but just couldn't live with a 12 inch screen. In other words, those with poor reading vision. But now I think I've found the real reason people buy this model: your hands don't cramp up every third sentence.
This machine, too, has a flaw that just might be fatal -- at least for me. Because while the larger 14 inch screen means that the base of the laptop is large enough to actually hold my wrists, the screen itself doesn't actually hold anything more than the 12 inch model. They both have the exact same 1024x768 resolution. For me, the larger screen would just be waste, I think. Paying for all that extra LCD just to have room to fit my wrists on the machine would seem like a wasteful crime. Well, perhaps. But everything seems way too big on this screen, and there's really no way to make it smaller. If the 14 inch G4 iBook had an option for a 1200x900 screen resolution (even as a build-to-order unit), I think it would be ideal for me. But alas, getting any kind of design work done in 1024x768 gives me some mental cramps, if not wrist cramps. Still, it's a nice machine -- I'm surprised it's not more popular than it is.
This post brought to you from a 12 inch G4 iBook
No, I didn't just buy one. Hanging out at the Apple Store is all, pondering what exactly to buy for whom with only a week left. Of course, I've got a whole week, so I guess that explains why I'm hanging out in a store that I won't be buying any gifts from, but has plenty of cool toys that I'd love to receive as gifts. Heh. Anyway, it just occurred to me that while this 12 inch G4 iBook I'm typing on is quite a nice machine, it still suffers from the same flaw that the "snow white" iBook model has since its introduction three years ago: the front end of it is so abrupty boxy that your palms have absolutely nowhere to go, making typing anything more than a few paragraphs an excruciating experience. It's a shame because, other than that one fatal flaw, this is an excellent value-based laptop. And if you're wondering, no, I never will get over the fact that this is the form factor that Apple scrapped the clamshell in favor of. If you think I'm being overreactive about the discomfort-while-typing thing, then I'll invite to recall what exactly it is that I do for a living.
No, I didn't just buy one. Hanging out at the Apple Store is all, pondering what exactly to buy for whom with only a week left. Of course, I've got a whole week, so I guess that explains why I'm hanging out in a store that I won't be buying any gifts from, but has plenty of cool toys that I'd love to receive as gifts. Heh. Anyway, it just occurred to me that while this 12 inch G4 iBook I'm typing on is quite a nice machine, it still suffers from the same flaw that the "snow white" iBook model has since its introduction three years ago: the front end of it is so abrupty boxy that your palms have absolutely nowhere to go, making typing anything more than a few paragraphs an excruciating experience. It's a shame because, other than that one fatal flaw, this is an excellent value-based laptop. And if you're wondering, no, I never will get over the fact that this is the form factor that Apple scrapped the clamshell in favor of. If you think I'm being overreactive about the discomfort-while-typing thing, then I'll invite to recall what exactly it is that I do for a living.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Should you keep buying software for your end-of-life'd Mac?
On Monday I explained why I've decided not to put any more money into my aging Titanium G4 PowerBook when it comes to hardware add-ons or upgrades. I can admit now that it wasn't until I was about three-fourths of the way through writing the article that I realized that my thinking hadn't yet stretched to include software. So I made sure to strictly word the closing few paragraphs of the article to make it clear that I was only referring to hardware-related purchases, in order to buy some time to think about the software issue. But at least one reader saw right through it, and wrote in to pose the same question that I've been asking myself all week:
When you've set a timeframe for buying your next Mac and you've decided to cease investing any money into your old Mac in favor of setting that money aside for purchasing the new one, does that purchasing moratorium extend to software?
And the answers are yes, no, and I don't know -- in that order.
If something like Keynote 2.0 comes out before I buy my next Mac, something that I know I'll want and I know I'll put to good use immediately (especially if it's something I use for business purposes and not just for personal amusement), then I'll gobble it up in a heartbeat. I mean, why wait? Any new Mac I buy won't come with Keynote 2.0 pre-bundled, so I might as well go ahead and buy it when it comes out. When I get my new Mac, I'll install it there instead. So the answer, in this case, is yes.
If something like iLife 05 comes to market before I make my next computer purchase, I'll be tempted to want to get my hands on it right away, but two things will prevent me from doing so. The first is that it's a given that my new Mac will come with the latest version of iLife, so if I buy a retail copy, I'll pretty much be throwing it away when I buy my new Mac. The second thing is that, as much as I love the entire iLife suite, I just don't use iPhoto or iMovie that frequently. Although I have easy access to both a digital camera and a digital camcorder, I don't actually own either one. So unless some major multimedia project comes along, I'll likely stick with iLife 04. Don't get me wrong; if a new computer were not on the horizon, I'd be line to buy iLife 05 as soon as it comes out. But I really can't justify buying a new version of software I don't frequently use, when I know that it's going to get handed to me for free when I buy my next computer. So the answer, in this case, is no.
But then we come to the touchy subject of operating systems. Why is this one a bit tricky? Because, simply put, the operating system is the computer. It's what makes a Mac a Mac, and it's what makes a PC a joke. I've bought every new version of MacOS X the day it's been released, and each of them has been worth every penny. As solid as Jaguar was, the thought of using it now makes me want to hurl; Panther just blows it out of the water. So my first instinct would be that I'll snap up Tiger at the release party, even if it means that I'll end up effectively losing some money in the process.
But then I think back to the fact that, by virtue of having been an educator, I've never paid more than $69 for any MacOS X upgrade. That won't work this time. If I want Tiger for my current PowerBook, it'll run me nearly twice as much. And so I really have to think about whether it's worth blowing $129 just to run Tiger on my old Mac for the relatively brief period of time until I buy the new one.
Part of the answer comes down to the actual amount of time involved. The only official timeframe we have for Tiger's release date is "the first half of 2005," which could mean anything from January to June, and probably means March or April. If Tiger comes out in June and I'm planning on buying my new Mac in July, then no, I'm not going to blow $129 just for one month of usage. But if Tiger rolls out in February and I end up not buying my G5 PowerBook until next November, then it's a whole other issue.
And finally, what it comes down to is this: when I buy my new Mac laptop, will I be keeping the old one as a secondary machine? If the answer is yes, then I'll certainly want to have it running the same Tiger operating system as my new laptop, so I'll likely end up buying a license for Tiger for my old laptop. But if the answer is no, then that means that I'll be selling my old laptop on eBay, and I doubt I could get an extra $129 for it just because it has Tiger on it instead of Panther. Just like with a home or a car, you don't want to invest money into a computer that you don't think you can get back out of it when you go to sell it.
So I guess the answer to whether or not I'll be buying Tiger for my existing Mac laptop, is the same as the answer to whether or not I'll be selling my existing Mac laptop to help pay for the new one.
And that answer is, quite simply, that I don't know yet.
On Monday I explained why I've decided not to put any more money into my aging Titanium G4 PowerBook when it comes to hardware add-ons or upgrades. I can admit now that it wasn't until I was about three-fourths of the way through writing the article that I realized that my thinking hadn't yet stretched to include software. So I made sure to strictly word the closing few paragraphs of the article to make it clear that I was only referring to hardware-related purchases, in order to buy some time to think about the software issue. But at least one reader saw right through it, and wrote in to pose the same question that I've been asking myself all week:
When you've set a timeframe for buying your next Mac and you've decided to cease investing any money into your old Mac in favor of setting that money aside for purchasing the new one, does that purchasing moratorium extend to software?
And the answers are yes, no, and I don't know -- in that order.
If something like Keynote 2.0 comes out before I buy my next Mac, something that I know I'll want and I know I'll put to good use immediately (especially if it's something I use for business purposes and not just for personal amusement), then I'll gobble it up in a heartbeat. I mean, why wait? Any new Mac I buy won't come with Keynote 2.0 pre-bundled, so I might as well go ahead and buy it when it comes out. When I get my new Mac, I'll install it there instead. So the answer, in this case, is yes.
If something like iLife 05 comes to market before I make my next computer purchase, I'll be tempted to want to get my hands on it right away, but two things will prevent me from doing so. The first is that it's a given that my new Mac will come with the latest version of iLife, so if I buy a retail copy, I'll pretty much be throwing it away when I buy my new Mac. The second thing is that, as much as I love the entire iLife suite, I just don't use iPhoto or iMovie that frequently. Although I have easy access to both a digital camera and a digital camcorder, I don't actually own either one. So unless some major multimedia project comes along, I'll likely stick with iLife 04. Don't get me wrong; if a new computer were not on the horizon, I'd be line to buy iLife 05 as soon as it comes out. But I really can't justify buying a new version of software I don't frequently use, when I know that it's going to get handed to me for free when I buy my next computer. So the answer, in this case, is no.
But then we come to the touchy subject of operating systems. Why is this one a bit tricky? Because, simply put, the operating system is the computer. It's what makes a Mac a Mac, and it's what makes a PC a joke. I've bought every new version of MacOS X the day it's been released, and each of them has been worth every penny. As solid as Jaguar was, the thought of using it now makes me want to hurl; Panther just blows it out of the water. So my first instinct would be that I'll snap up Tiger at the release party, even if it means that I'll end up effectively losing some money in the process.
But then I think back to the fact that, by virtue of having been an educator, I've never paid more than $69 for any MacOS X upgrade. That won't work this time. If I want Tiger for my current PowerBook, it'll run me nearly twice as much. And so I really have to think about whether it's worth blowing $129 just to run Tiger on my old Mac for the relatively brief period of time until I buy the new one.
Part of the answer comes down to the actual amount of time involved. The only official timeframe we have for Tiger's release date is "the first half of 2005," which could mean anything from January to June, and probably means March or April. If Tiger comes out in June and I'm planning on buying my new Mac in July, then no, I'm not going to blow $129 just for one month of usage. But if Tiger rolls out in February and I end up not buying my G5 PowerBook until next November, then it's a whole other issue.
And finally, what it comes down to is this: when I buy my new Mac laptop, will I be keeping the old one as a secondary machine? If the answer is yes, then I'll certainly want to have it running the same Tiger operating system as my new laptop, so I'll likely end up buying a license for Tiger for my old laptop. But if the answer is no, then that means that I'll be selling my old laptop on eBay, and I doubt I could get an extra $129 for it just because it has Tiger on it instead of Panther. Just like with a home or a car, you don't want to invest money into a computer that you don't think you can get back out of it when you go to sell it.
So I guess the answer to whether or not I'll be buying Tiger for my existing Mac laptop, is the same as the answer to whether or not I'll be selling my existing Mac laptop to help pay for the new one.
And that answer is, quite simply, that I don't know yet.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Should Apple join the other PC companies in pretending to sell a sub-$500 computer?
There has to be a good reason to republish an older column, and I think this one qualifies. This one's for the family member who asked me this week if Apple makes a $500 computer to compete with Dell's $500 computer. It's also for the reader who wrote in last night to ask if I had anything to help him correct his co-workers' misconceptions about Macintosh pricing. It's also for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation: under the false impression (or in the presence of someone who's under the false impression) that the major name-brand PC companies actually sell a $499 computer. The article is about six months old, and I haven't changed a word of it, but I did a little spot-checking on the Dell website, and it turns out that things haven't a changed a bit:
A couple of things got me thinking. One was my latest plea for proponents of the mythical "headless iMac" to just get over their fantasy, accept the fact that the $799 eMac is in fact the computer that they're pining for, and move on. The other was a Hewlett-Packard TV commercial I saw this morning, promising a PC for a newly absurdly low price. My question for myself was, why is it that Apple can barely break the $800 barrier, while other name-brand companies such as HP and Dell can offer products for under five hundred dollars? Well, after configuring a systems in the online stores of HP and a few others, I think I've found the answer: the other companies can't do it either.
But boy, they sure can pretend to in those television ads. I'll show you what I mean. While I had no intention of putting together a specific dollar-for-dollar analysis, I figured that my little adventure might be worth writing about one way or the other, so I did take a few notes along the way:
First, I went to the specific site that the HP ad sent me to: www.hp.com/pcad. Granted, I felt pretty stupid when I initially mis-typed that last part as "tvad", but gee, how could I have made that particular mistake? Maybe the fact that I got the URL from a TV ad? Oh well. HP's lame marketing efforts aside, I eventually found my way to the correct promotional page, and was offered two models as choices. And as much as I hate to bring HP's marketing department back into this after only a two-sentence hiatus, I believe that they have in fact come up with the worst computer model name of all time: "the Pavilion a410y". I mean, is it even possible to come up with worse name? A letter, followed by numbers, and then another letter? That's not a computer, that's a license plate. But anyway, at $498.99, I'd found my sub-$500 model.
Or so I thought. Setting out to add the very least amount of options that I could in order to make the HP model's hardware at least somewhat comparable to the $799 eMac, I added an optical mouse for $20 and a CDRW/DVD drive for $100 (both of these come included, of course, with the eMac). I tried to upgrade to something better than whatever "Integrated Intel Extreme Graphics" is, but it wouldn't let me. So while the eMac's ATI Radeon 7500 graphics card beats the living crap out of "integrated" anything, I left it be. Same thing with the bundled HP 17" CRT monitor that I've seen in stores and can't hold a candle to the eMac's display. For all the whining by headless iMac proponents about being "stuck" with a certain monitor when you buy an eMac, H-P gives you no more monitor flexibility -- and sticks you with something crappy, to boot.
But regardless of the this particular H-P Pavilion a410y's obvious hardware deficiencies in comparison to the eMac, I went ahead and gave it the benefit of the doubt. Remember, I wasn't trying to be scientific here, I just wanted to figure out why H-P could offer a computer for under five hundred bucks and Apple couldn't. So I hit the "configure" button, and was presented with a subtotal of $818.99. Huh?
Silly me, I had failed to read the fine print. This computer wasn't priced at $498.99, it was priced at "$498.99 after $200 mail-in rebate". Which is to say that the computer costs $698.99, and those who remember to send out a hobgob of paperwork just might receive $200 of it back in six to sixty weeks, or whatever it is. And that's before you add on $15 to get the current version of the truly crappy MS Works (although last year's version is conveniently bundled free). Don't even think about trying to bundle any "equivalents" for iMovie or iPhoto; for one thing, they don't exist, and H-P doesn't even bother to offer to sell you any of the imitators. So even ignoring the embarrassing lack of bundled software when compared to the eMac, our friendly H-P "a410y" is either priced in the $600's if you believe in the legitimacy of mail-in rebates, and priced in the $800's if you don't. The rebate thing is a debate for another day, but clearly H-P is not offering an eMac equivalent for under $500. They're banking on the fact that most consumers will add on enough "options" like a CD burner or a real mouse, and that enough of them will forget to send in the rebates (or make some tiny technical error in doing so), so that very few if any customers will actually end up with a $498 computer.
So H-P's claim of offering a sub-$500 computer is certainly not an out-and-out lie, but it's about as far from the truth as you can get without being one. So much for them. But then I got to head-scratching as to whether any of the other name brands is really offering an eMac competitor for $499, or merely also pretending to. So I tried Dell. And I really don't want to be rude here, but Dell has got to have the butt-ugliest home page I've ever seen of any company, ever. I can't think off-hand of the names of any companies that sell fake vomit, but I'd wager that they have more professional-looking home pages than Dell. Just blew me away, really. Just because they're offering an undistinguished product, does that mean that their site has to look like something that I made? See, I can make fun of myself while making fun of others!
But even putting Dell's apparent ugly-stick beating aside, the logistics of the site are all wrong, right from the first choice it forces you to immediately make: are you buying for work, or for home? You have to choose one or the other, or you don't even get past the splash screen. That's just sad. Is there some kind of Berlin Wall going down the middle of Dell's product line? If I'm a home user, I don't even get to look at the models that are being offered for "work"? It's particularly insulting, considering that Dell only has one faceless product for sale anyway, just configured eight thousand slightly different ways. Do they think they're impressing anyone by pretending that they're doing something distinct for the two groups of people?
I mean, this is the world's number one seller of computers? I read yesterday that Dell wants to be the "WalMart of personal computers". With a site like that, Dell would struggle to be called the K-Mart of computers. But I digress. I came here to find myself a sub-$500 computer, and while I had no idea whether I would find that in the "work" or the "home" section of the site, I figured I'd go with "home", since that's what (I think) I was in on the H-P site. I guess I picked the right one, because I found myself a model that wasn't just sub-$500, it was way sub-$500. Yep, I found myself something called a "Dimension 2400" for a mere $449. Yowzah!
So let's get this puppy configured. Let's see how cheaply I can put this thing on par with the eMac. I click on the Dimension 2400, and it presents me with what appears to be a feature list, with a series of defaults already selected for me, so just because Michael Dell dresses like a trustable fellow, I go with the defaults without looking at them (because an honest, upright company would certainly have the least expensive options selected as defaults, right?), and suddenly the "new" cost of my $449 computer has conveniently been adjusted to $846.
Now, for all the times that you or I might use "LOL" in online conversation to suggest that we're laughing out loud, there are in fact very few times where most of us are sitting at the computer and are compelled to literally laugh out loud. This was one of them. I also fell out of my chair. Literally. Of however few times you find yourself slumped to the floor, overcome with laughter, this was one of them for me. Darn, I had hoping that such a significant moment would have been caused by something a bit more, I don't know, witty. But life is a series of disappointments -- at least when you're dealing with PC's, anyway. Funny how life's pretty much the opposite when you're dealing with Macs. Maybe that's why I use them. But anyway.
My trusty sub-$500 Dell PC had darn near doubled in price just because I had oh-so-extravagantly gone with the defaults that Dell had selected for me. Oh, I went back and began to try to fiddle with the add-ons to make the thing a bit cheaper, but as I added $89 for a Combo Drive and $50 for a FireWire "IEEE 1394 adapter" (an adapter?), I gave up. At least H-P managed to keep up the sub-$500 charade going until the process was nearly complete. But Dell? They only lasted two clicks before admitting that their cheapest model is more or less price-comparable to the eMac as well.
At this point I was actually disappointed that I couldn't legitimately find a sub-$500 PC, and turned to the last refuge of the desperate. That's right, I paid a visit to Gateway's site. You'd think there'd be a full-scale fire sale underway by now, I mean I thought I'd see them selling office furniture on the home page. No, not new office furniture, their office furniture. They've got to have quite a bit of it lying around by now, what with the thousands of layoffs and all. I mean, computers? They ought to be giving those away by now. But alas, the cheapest PC I could find from the home page was $599. At least they're being a little more honest the competition (or so I thought). Our model was the 510S, which when I clicked on it, I found out had just been repriced (within the past microsecond) to $999.
No, really, I didn't click on the wrong thing, Gateway really is this brazen with the bait-and-switch tactics here. I managed to find the 510SE, which is the actual $599 model, only after scanning the sidebar. But I did even better: I found the 310SE, which is priced at a highly economical $399. Until you realize that it doesn't come with a monitor. Fortunately, the 310S does, but it costs $599...which happens to be the same price as the 510SE. Confused? Good. That's their goal, after all.
But this 310SE puppy was truly bare bones if ever there was such a thing. No word processor bundled, so I added $39 for MS Works. I was able to select a $40 upgrade to a less-crappy 17" CRT monitor, $29 for an optical mouse, $59 for Quicken (which comes free with the eMac)...oh, and then there was this extended warranty thing. For $59 extra, you get I don't know, some kind of service plan, hey that's great, but how do I deselect that? Oh, let's see, I guess you don't. You literally can not opt out of the extended warranty, not with the interface provided, anyway. Is that because Gateway is pretty sure they won't be around to have to honor the warranty two or three years from now anyway?
For what it (isn't) worth, my grand total for the Gateway 310SE (at least I think it was a 310SE) was $829 including the warranty I couldn't get rid of. Throw the cheapest shipping method possible, and we're up to $906. Of course, if I were really buying this, I'd skip the shipping charges and race down to the local Gateway Country Store...no wait, are any of those still open? I can't remember. Seems like Gateway closes its stores these days as fast as Apple opens them.
I could have tried eMachines, even though they're sort of the anti-name brand of all the name brands, but I'd had just about enough of configuring PC's for one day. The store interfaces are awful, the models are stupid, and the deceit and attempted trickery are so obviously transparent that you want to puke. Someone else could probably go to these same sites and try to configure these same models and come out with different dollar amounts (which I think says something in itself about these companies), but like I said, I wasn't doing this to come up with specific prices.
I just wanted to see what these other name-brand companies were doing that allowed them to offer $499 entry-level computer models, while Apple starts at $799. And now I know: none of them are really selling sub-$500 computer models; they're just pretending to, in order to get you in the door. Their actual base models are, essentially, priced in the same range as the base-model eMac. So the question left to ask is not why Apple doesn't sell a sub-$500 computer, because none of the other name-brands really do, either. The question is, should Apple do like the competition does, and pretend that they do?
There has to be a good reason to republish an older column, and I think this one qualifies. This one's for the family member who asked me this week if Apple makes a $500 computer to compete with Dell's $500 computer. It's also for the reader who wrote in last night to ask if I had anything to help him correct his co-workers' misconceptions about Macintosh pricing. It's also for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation: under the false impression (or in the presence of someone who's under the false impression) that the major name-brand PC companies actually sell a $499 computer. The article is about six months old, and I haven't changed a word of it, but I did a little spot-checking on the Dell website, and it turns out that things haven't a changed a bit:
A couple of things got me thinking. One was my latest plea for proponents of the mythical "headless iMac" to just get over their fantasy, accept the fact that the $799 eMac is in fact the computer that they're pining for, and move on. The other was a Hewlett-Packard TV commercial I saw this morning, promising a PC for a newly absurdly low price. My question for myself was, why is it that Apple can barely break the $800 barrier, while other name-brand companies such as HP and Dell can offer products for under five hundred dollars? Well, after configuring a systems in the online stores of HP and a few others, I think I've found the answer: the other companies can't do it either.
But boy, they sure can pretend to in those television ads. I'll show you what I mean. While I had no intention of putting together a specific dollar-for-dollar analysis, I figured that my little adventure might be worth writing about one way or the other, so I did take a few notes along the way:
First, I went to the specific site that the HP ad sent me to: www.hp.com/pcad. Granted, I felt pretty stupid when I initially mis-typed that last part as "tvad", but gee, how could I have made that particular mistake? Maybe the fact that I got the URL from a TV ad? Oh well. HP's lame marketing efforts aside, I eventually found my way to the correct promotional page, and was offered two models as choices. And as much as I hate to bring HP's marketing department back into this after only a two-sentence hiatus, I believe that they have in fact come up with the worst computer model name of all time: "the Pavilion a410y". I mean, is it even possible to come up with worse name? A letter, followed by numbers, and then another letter? That's not a computer, that's a license plate. But anyway, at $498.99, I'd found my sub-$500 model.
Or so I thought. Setting out to add the very least amount of options that I could in order to make the HP model's hardware at least somewhat comparable to the $799 eMac, I added an optical mouse for $20 and a CDRW/DVD drive for $100 (both of these come included, of course, with the eMac). I tried to upgrade to something better than whatever "Integrated Intel Extreme Graphics" is, but it wouldn't let me. So while the eMac's ATI Radeon 7500 graphics card beats the living crap out of "integrated" anything, I left it be. Same thing with the bundled HP 17" CRT monitor that I've seen in stores and can't hold a candle to the eMac's display. For all the whining by headless iMac proponents about being "stuck" with a certain monitor when you buy an eMac, H-P gives you no more monitor flexibility -- and sticks you with something crappy, to boot.
But regardless of the this particular H-P Pavilion a410y's obvious hardware deficiencies in comparison to the eMac, I went ahead and gave it the benefit of the doubt. Remember, I wasn't trying to be scientific here, I just wanted to figure out why H-P could offer a computer for under five hundred bucks and Apple couldn't. So I hit the "configure" button, and was presented with a subtotal of $818.99. Huh?
Silly me, I had failed to read the fine print. This computer wasn't priced at $498.99, it was priced at "$498.99 after $200 mail-in rebate". Which is to say that the computer costs $698.99, and those who remember to send out a hobgob of paperwork just might receive $200 of it back in six to sixty weeks, or whatever it is. And that's before you add on $15 to get the current version of the truly crappy MS Works (although last year's version is conveniently bundled free). Don't even think about trying to bundle any "equivalents" for iMovie or iPhoto; for one thing, they don't exist, and H-P doesn't even bother to offer to sell you any of the imitators. So even ignoring the embarrassing lack of bundled software when compared to the eMac, our friendly H-P "a410y" is either priced in the $600's if you believe in the legitimacy of mail-in rebates, and priced in the $800's if you don't. The rebate thing is a debate for another day, but clearly H-P is not offering an eMac equivalent for under $500. They're banking on the fact that most consumers will add on enough "options" like a CD burner or a real mouse, and that enough of them will forget to send in the rebates (or make some tiny technical error in doing so), so that very few if any customers will actually end up with a $498 computer.
So H-P's claim of offering a sub-$500 computer is certainly not an out-and-out lie, but it's about as far from the truth as you can get without being one. So much for them. But then I got to head-scratching as to whether any of the other name brands is really offering an eMac competitor for $499, or merely also pretending to. So I tried Dell. And I really don't want to be rude here, but Dell has got to have the butt-ugliest home page I've ever seen of any company, ever. I can't think off-hand of the names of any companies that sell fake vomit, but I'd wager that they have more professional-looking home pages than Dell. Just blew me away, really. Just because they're offering an undistinguished product, does that mean that their site has to look like something that I made? See, I can make fun of myself while making fun of others!
But even putting Dell's apparent ugly-stick beating aside, the logistics of the site are all wrong, right from the first choice it forces you to immediately make: are you buying for work, or for home? You have to choose one or the other, or you don't even get past the splash screen. That's just sad. Is there some kind of Berlin Wall going down the middle of Dell's product line? If I'm a home user, I don't even get to look at the models that are being offered for "work"? It's particularly insulting, considering that Dell only has one faceless product for sale anyway, just configured eight thousand slightly different ways. Do they think they're impressing anyone by pretending that they're doing something distinct for the two groups of people?
I mean, this is the world's number one seller of computers? I read yesterday that Dell wants to be the "WalMart of personal computers". With a site like that, Dell would struggle to be called the K-Mart of computers. But I digress. I came here to find myself a sub-$500 computer, and while I had no idea whether I would find that in the "work" or the "home" section of the site, I figured I'd go with "home", since that's what (I think) I was in on the H-P site. I guess I picked the right one, because I found myself a model that wasn't just sub-$500, it was way sub-$500. Yep, I found myself something called a "Dimension 2400" for a mere $449. Yowzah!
So let's get this puppy configured. Let's see how cheaply I can put this thing on par with the eMac. I click on the Dimension 2400, and it presents me with what appears to be a feature list, with a series of defaults already selected for me, so just because Michael Dell dresses like a trustable fellow, I go with the defaults without looking at them (because an honest, upright company would certainly have the least expensive options selected as defaults, right?), and suddenly the "new" cost of my $449 computer has conveniently been adjusted to $846.
Now, for all the times that you or I might use "LOL" in online conversation to suggest that we're laughing out loud, there are in fact very few times where most of us are sitting at the computer and are compelled to literally laugh out loud. This was one of them. I also fell out of my chair. Literally. Of however few times you find yourself slumped to the floor, overcome with laughter, this was one of them for me. Darn, I had hoping that such a significant moment would have been caused by something a bit more, I don't know, witty. But life is a series of disappointments -- at least when you're dealing with PC's, anyway. Funny how life's pretty much the opposite when you're dealing with Macs. Maybe that's why I use them. But anyway.
My trusty sub-$500 Dell PC had darn near doubled in price just because I had oh-so-extravagantly gone with the defaults that Dell had selected for me. Oh, I went back and began to try to fiddle with the add-ons to make the thing a bit cheaper, but as I added $89 for a Combo Drive and $50 for a FireWire "IEEE 1394 adapter" (an adapter?), I gave up. At least H-P managed to keep up the sub-$500 charade going until the process was nearly complete. But Dell? They only lasted two clicks before admitting that their cheapest model is more or less price-comparable to the eMac as well.
At this point I was actually disappointed that I couldn't legitimately find a sub-$500 PC, and turned to the last refuge of the desperate. That's right, I paid a visit to Gateway's site. You'd think there'd be a full-scale fire sale underway by now, I mean I thought I'd see them selling office furniture on the home page. No, not new office furniture, their office furniture. They've got to have quite a bit of it lying around by now, what with the thousands of layoffs and all. I mean, computers? They ought to be giving those away by now. But alas, the cheapest PC I could find from the home page was $599. At least they're being a little more honest the competition (or so I thought). Our model was the 510S, which when I clicked on it, I found out had just been repriced (within the past microsecond) to $999.
No, really, I didn't click on the wrong thing, Gateway really is this brazen with the bait-and-switch tactics here. I managed to find the 510SE, which is the actual $599 model, only after scanning the sidebar. But I did even better: I found the 310SE, which is priced at a highly economical $399. Until you realize that it doesn't come with a monitor. Fortunately, the 310S does, but it costs $599...which happens to be the same price as the 510SE. Confused? Good. That's their goal, after all.
But this 310SE puppy was truly bare bones if ever there was such a thing. No word processor bundled, so I added $39 for MS Works. I was able to select a $40 upgrade to a less-crappy 17" CRT monitor, $29 for an optical mouse, $59 for Quicken (which comes free with the eMac)...oh, and then there was this extended warranty thing. For $59 extra, you get I don't know, some kind of service plan, hey that's great, but how do I deselect that? Oh, let's see, I guess you don't. You literally can not opt out of the extended warranty, not with the interface provided, anyway. Is that because Gateway is pretty sure they won't be around to have to honor the warranty two or three years from now anyway?
For what it (isn't) worth, my grand total for the Gateway 310SE (at least I think it was a 310SE) was $829 including the warranty I couldn't get rid of. Throw the cheapest shipping method possible, and we're up to $906. Of course, if I were really buying this, I'd skip the shipping charges and race down to the local Gateway Country Store...no wait, are any of those still open? I can't remember. Seems like Gateway closes its stores these days as fast as Apple opens them.
I could have tried eMachines, even though they're sort of the anti-name brand of all the name brands, but I'd had just about enough of configuring PC's for one day. The store interfaces are awful, the models are stupid, and the deceit and attempted trickery are so obviously transparent that you want to puke. Someone else could probably go to these same sites and try to configure these same models and come out with different dollar amounts (which I think says something in itself about these companies), but like I said, I wasn't doing this to come up with specific prices.
I just wanted to see what these other name-brand companies were doing that allowed them to offer $499 entry-level computer models, while Apple starts at $799. And now I know: none of them are really selling sub-$500 computer models; they're just pretending to, in order to get you in the door. Their actual base models are, essentially, priced in the same range as the base-model eMac. So the question left to ask is not why Apple doesn't sell a sub-$500 computer, because none of the other name-brands really do, either. The question is, should Apple do like the competition does, and pretend that they do?
Monday, December 06, 2004
Why I've end-of-life'd my own PowerBook
Awhile back, I learned the value of explaining what a geek phrase such as "end of life" means, before actually putting it into use in front of people who might not be able to take it in the proper context. About three years ago, the school district sent one of its people out to our school to inform us of the "good news" that they were providing us with the funds to purchase a number of Apple laptops for teacher use. The problem, of course, was that, according to my sources at the time, Apple had recently stopped producing that particular laptop model, meaning that a new and better model was imminent. In industry speak, one would say that the product had been "end-of-life'd" or killed off in favor of whatever was coming next. But it wasn't until after I complained to the district rep that they were trying to "stick us with machines that have been end-of-life'd" that I realized that not one person in the room had any idea what I might have been talking about. Perhaps they assumed that I felt that someone should be killed for the whole mess.
And while that last sentiment might not have been far from the truth, it wasn't what I was trying to get across. My point was that all we had to do was to wait a short amount of time before placing our orders, and we would be assured of getting the new model. I guess the lesson to be learned was that some phrases just don't work so well when the person the district sends out to "assist" you with ordering your computers didn't even seem to know how to turn one on. And here three years later, it would seem that I still haven't learned my lesson, seeing as how I've used the phrase "end-of-life" in the title of this article -- and even worse, I've used it in a way that perhaps no one else uses it.
So allow me to back up a bit and explain what I'm actually referring to here, before everyone starts trying to figure out whose life it is that I want to end this time around:
About nine months ago, I found myself suddenly in need of a new Mac, and seeing as how I had just enough funds to buy myself a spanking new eMac, everything seemed rather simple. That was, of course, until I was about to make the purchase and found that I couldn't go through with it, because despite the higher costs involved, I just had to return to my laptop roots. You see, I'd bought an original iBook the week it first hit stores (it's still sitting next to me right now), and throughout my years of working for the school district, I never used anything but a laptop. But after I moved on from the school-based job and began working for myself, I reverted back to using a desktop, because I could get away with doing so, and because it was available. But it never was my thing.
So when the time finally came to finally pull the trigger on a new desktop, I just couldn't do it. My budget pointed me toward a twelve inch G4 iBook, perhaps a refurbished one. But one look at ye olde iBook of mine told me that I just couldn't manage to do the kind of work I do every day, which includes web design ad juggling back and forth between half a dozen apps at a time, on a puny twelve inch screen. So I looked at the fourteen inch G4 iBook, but found myself suddenly way out of my price range, which meant that I would need to look at a used model. And seeing as how the fourteen inch iBook had only existed for a few months at the time, there weren't going to be and used ones available that were old enough to fall into my price range. That last one had to be one of the wierdest catch-22's I'd run into in awhile, but what it meant was that the iBook, in any screen size, was out of the question.
Besides, the fourteen inch iBook had another problem: despite the fact that its screen was two diagonal inches larger than its twelve inch cousin, the screen resolution was the exact same 1024x768 pixels. Suffice it to say that the screen on the fourteen inch iBook couldn't actually hold anything more than the twelve incher, it just made everything a bit larger. So unless you've reached the point where you need everything bigger in order to read it, there's no real point. I'm in my late twenties and I'm severely myopic, so using a computer is one of the few things that I can do without glasses. In other words, in my case, those two extra inches would have just been for show.
I concluded that if I were going to buy a laptop, it would simply have to be a PowerBook that could handle about 1200 by 900 pixels (not coincidentally, just about the same number of pixels on an eMac screen). I was going to have to find not just a used G4 PowerBook, but a severely used one. And that I did. I would never buy a used laptop from stranger (you think they're really going to tell you how many or how few times they've dropped it over the years), but it just so happened that someone I knew and trusted was parting with a two-year-old Titanium PowerBook for just about the same amount of money that I would have spent on a new eMac, so it was a perfect fit.
It was also a huge gamble. I simply must have nearly unfettered access to a computer and to the internet in order to make my living, and I had just invested in a machine that was two years old and had no warranty. I knew that there was no way I would know if I'd made the right decision until after I'd already made it, so I ended up going for the PowerBook. It had more potential downside, but it also had more potential upside. And as it turns out, a lot more upside.
I didn't used to leave town much. But it turns out that it wasn't because I didn't have a desire to do so; it was because I didn't have a desire to be away from my own computer. Nowadays, I just grab my laptop and go wherever I feel like. If wherever I'm going doesn't have internet access, then I can always just find the local Apple Store and sit outside of it with my laptop and tap their wireless signal. And while I'm not quite a road warrior, I feel free as a bird when it comes to traveling. Beyond that, I use my laptop all over the house. When I've been sitting in one spot for too many hours, I just take my computer and go sit somewhere else. If it's another room, fine. If it's the front porch, that works too.
In hindsight, there's no question I made the right choice. As much of a supporter of the eMac as I've been over the years (perfect for the classroom, perfect for the home), the truth is that I'm just a laptop person.
But as with everything, there comes a time to pay the piper. And in my case, the flipside of all my glee is that here nine months later, I'm hacking away on a machine that's a little less than half as fast as that eMac would have been. It didn't matter then; it matters a little more now. It's not that computers get slower as they get older. It's that newer versions of your operating system and vital applications come out, and there's real reasons to upgrade to those new versions, but they're more demanding when it comes to processor and memory usage, so at some point the newer versions of things actually run slower on your aging computer than the older versions did. And while I'm not there yet, that point will come eventually -- and a lot sooner than if I'd opted for a brand spanking new desktop.
At some point, even if your current Mac is doing everything you want it to, you have to start formulating a plan for acquiring your next Mac. It's not that you expect your current Mac to die. It's not that you expect it to suddenly become unable to support your needs. But such things tend to creep up on you while you're not paying attention, and the next thing you know, you're ready for a newer more powerful Mac but you haven't put a thought toward what to buy next and you haven't even budgeted a cent toward it.
I'm not going to let that happen. So here's what I've come up with:
There's no reason to replace this G4 laptop with another G4 laptop. Sure, the current Aluminum PowerBooks are about three times as fast as this one, but the bottom line is that they're still of the same processor family. It may not mean anything now, but take a look at the fact that here in 2004, running all the latest software, any Mac with a G4 processor just runs circles around any G3-based Mac, regardless of the clock speeds involved. I can get real work done on this 667 Mhz G4 PowerBook, but don't even try and put anything with a G3 in it in front of me. So I figure that two or three years from now, we'll be in the exact same situation, only this time with the G5 and the G4. Any G4 laptop will be sagging; any G5 laptop will be fine. One little problem: there is no such thing as G5 laptop.
But you see, that actually works in my favor, because I'm not looking to buy a new laptop right now anyway. I'm just making future plans. So my first rule for buying a new laptop is set in place: it has to be a G5. Depending on which sources you believe, the existence of such a product is anywhere from three to twelve months away or more, so that gives me my time frame for acquiring the new beast. My current laptop will be plenty until then. For that matter, the general rule is that once a new class of Apple computers comes out, you want to wait for at least one revision before buying. The reasons? Any flaws in the new design will have been worked out, and any missing features will have been added if enough users do enough complaining about their absence. I'm not sure it holds true nearly as much as it used to, but there's no real harm in sticking to it if you're not in any hurry.
So assuming it takes six to nine months for the G5 PowerBook to come to market and another three months to see the first set of revisions, I figure it'll be right about this time next year that I walk into the local Apple Store and walk out with a new laptop under my arm. I absolutely refuse to buy a computer with borrowed money (you never want to borrow money to buy something that depreciates as quickly as a computer), so that means that I have about twelve months to set aside the kind of fundage required to grab myself a fifteen inch G5 PowerBook. If the current pricing structure holds true, then that means that I'm looking at a little under two grand.
Since I'm aware of situation and I know what I have to earmark between now and then, it shouldn't be too hard, especially considering that the reward will be owning my first brand new Mac since 1999. In the mean time, though, the trick lies in not spending any more money on my current laptop. I'd originally planned to add an external SuperDrive to this PowerBook when I bought it, but there's no point in doing so now, because my next laptop will undoubtedly come with one built-in (and when you're dealing with a laptop, you always want to go internal if you can). I'd also originally planned to upgrade the 512 megabytes of RAM to a full gigabyte, but it turns out that a "mere" 512 MB has been more than enough to keep from slowing me down thus far. Why buy more unless I reach a point where I need it?
And that's my new motto from here on in. Unless something needs repaired that keeps me from getting my work done, I'm officially calling a permanent moratorium on investing any further money into my current laptop, so that I can instead set that money aside for purchasing my next one. Or, to use a dialect that apparently only I can understand, I've "end-of-life'd" my G4 PowerBook. No hardware add-ons, no hardware upgrades, no repairing anything unless something breaks that I can't live without.
So now it's just a waiting game until the G5 PowerBook comes into existence and until I have the means to acquire it. Now that I've got my gameplan in place, I'll just keep pecking away on my current laptop until that day comes, as if nothing had happened at all.
You've got to love being a Mac user.
Awhile back, I learned the value of explaining what a geek phrase such as "end of life" means, before actually putting it into use in front of people who might not be able to take it in the proper context. About three years ago, the school district sent one of its people out to our school to inform us of the "good news" that they were providing us with the funds to purchase a number of Apple laptops for teacher use. The problem, of course, was that, according to my sources at the time, Apple had recently stopped producing that particular laptop model, meaning that a new and better model was imminent. In industry speak, one would say that the product had been "end-of-life'd" or killed off in favor of whatever was coming next. But it wasn't until after I complained to the district rep that they were trying to "stick us with machines that have been end-of-life'd" that I realized that not one person in the room had any idea what I might have been talking about. Perhaps they assumed that I felt that someone should be killed for the whole mess.
And while that last sentiment might not have been far from the truth, it wasn't what I was trying to get across. My point was that all we had to do was to wait a short amount of time before placing our orders, and we would be assured of getting the new model. I guess the lesson to be learned was that some phrases just don't work so well when the person the district sends out to "assist" you with ordering your computers didn't even seem to know how to turn one on. And here three years later, it would seem that I still haven't learned my lesson, seeing as how I've used the phrase "end-of-life" in the title of this article -- and even worse, I've used it in a way that perhaps no one else uses it.
So allow me to back up a bit and explain what I'm actually referring to here, before everyone starts trying to figure out whose life it is that I want to end this time around:
About nine months ago, I found myself suddenly in need of a new Mac, and seeing as how I had just enough funds to buy myself a spanking new eMac, everything seemed rather simple. That was, of course, until I was about to make the purchase and found that I couldn't go through with it, because despite the higher costs involved, I just had to return to my laptop roots. You see, I'd bought an original iBook the week it first hit stores (it's still sitting next to me right now), and throughout my years of working for the school district, I never used anything but a laptop. But after I moved on from the school-based job and began working for myself, I reverted back to using a desktop, because I could get away with doing so, and because it was available. But it never was my thing.
So when the time finally came to finally pull the trigger on a new desktop, I just couldn't do it. My budget pointed me toward a twelve inch G4 iBook, perhaps a refurbished one. But one look at ye olde iBook of mine told me that I just couldn't manage to do the kind of work I do every day, which includes web design ad juggling back and forth between half a dozen apps at a time, on a puny twelve inch screen. So I looked at the fourteen inch G4 iBook, but found myself suddenly way out of my price range, which meant that I would need to look at a used model. And seeing as how the fourteen inch iBook had only existed for a few months at the time, there weren't going to be and used ones available that were old enough to fall into my price range. That last one had to be one of the wierdest catch-22's I'd run into in awhile, but what it meant was that the iBook, in any screen size, was out of the question.
Besides, the fourteen inch iBook had another problem: despite the fact that its screen was two diagonal inches larger than its twelve inch cousin, the screen resolution was the exact same 1024x768 pixels. Suffice it to say that the screen on the fourteen inch iBook couldn't actually hold anything more than the twelve incher, it just made everything a bit larger. So unless you've reached the point where you need everything bigger in order to read it, there's no real point. I'm in my late twenties and I'm severely myopic, so using a computer is one of the few things that I can do without glasses. In other words, in my case, those two extra inches would have just been for show.
I concluded that if I were going to buy a laptop, it would simply have to be a PowerBook that could handle about 1200 by 900 pixels (not coincidentally, just about the same number of pixels on an eMac screen). I was going to have to find not just a used G4 PowerBook, but a severely used one. And that I did. I would never buy a used laptop from stranger (you think they're really going to tell you how many or how few times they've dropped it over the years), but it just so happened that someone I knew and trusted was parting with a two-year-old Titanium PowerBook for just about the same amount of money that I would have spent on a new eMac, so it was a perfect fit.
It was also a huge gamble. I simply must have nearly unfettered access to a computer and to the internet in order to make my living, and I had just invested in a machine that was two years old and had no warranty. I knew that there was no way I would know if I'd made the right decision until after I'd already made it, so I ended up going for the PowerBook. It had more potential downside, but it also had more potential upside. And as it turns out, a lot more upside.
I didn't used to leave town much. But it turns out that it wasn't because I didn't have a desire to do so; it was because I didn't have a desire to be away from my own computer. Nowadays, I just grab my laptop and go wherever I feel like. If wherever I'm going doesn't have internet access, then I can always just find the local Apple Store and sit outside of it with my laptop and tap their wireless signal. And while I'm not quite a road warrior, I feel free as a bird when it comes to traveling. Beyond that, I use my laptop all over the house. When I've been sitting in one spot for too many hours, I just take my computer and go sit somewhere else. If it's another room, fine. If it's the front porch, that works too.
In hindsight, there's no question I made the right choice. As much of a supporter of the eMac as I've been over the years (perfect for the classroom, perfect for the home), the truth is that I'm just a laptop person.
But as with everything, there comes a time to pay the piper. And in my case, the flipside of all my glee is that here nine months later, I'm hacking away on a machine that's a little less than half as fast as that eMac would have been. It didn't matter then; it matters a little more now. It's not that computers get slower as they get older. It's that newer versions of your operating system and vital applications come out, and there's real reasons to upgrade to those new versions, but they're more demanding when it comes to processor and memory usage, so at some point the newer versions of things actually run slower on your aging computer than the older versions did. And while I'm not there yet, that point will come eventually -- and a lot sooner than if I'd opted for a brand spanking new desktop.
At some point, even if your current Mac is doing everything you want it to, you have to start formulating a plan for acquiring your next Mac. It's not that you expect your current Mac to die. It's not that you expect it to suddenly become unable to support your needs. But such things tend to creep up on you while you're not paying attention, and the next thing you know, you're ready for a newer more powerful Mac but you haven't put a thought toward what to buy next and you haven't even budgeted a cent toward it.
I'm not going to let that happen. So here's what I've come up with:
There's no reason to replace this G4 laptop with another G4 laptop. Sure, the current Aluminum PowerBooks are about three times as fast as this one, but the bottom line is that they're still of the same processor family. It may not mean anything now, but take a look at the fact that here in 2004, running all the latest software, any Mac with a G4 processor just runs circles around any G3-based Mac, regardless of the clock speeds involved. I can get real work done on this 667 Mhz G4 PowerBook, but don't even try and put anything with a G3 in it in front of me. So I figure that two or three years from now, we'll be in the exact same situation, only this time with the G5 and the G4. Any G4 laptop will be sagging; any G5 laptop will be fine. One little problem: there is no such thing as G5 laptop.
But you see, that actually works in my favor, because I'm not looking to buy a new laptop right now anyway. I'm just making future plans. So my first rule for buying a new laptop is set in place: it has to be a G5. Depending on which sources you believe, the existence of such a product is anywhere from three to twelve months away or more, so that gives me my time frame for acquiring the new beast. My current laptop will be plenty until then. For that matter, the general rule is that once a new class of Apple computers comes out, you want to wait for at least one revision before buying. The reasons? Any flaws in the new design will have been worked out, and any missing features will have been added if enough users do enough complaining about their absence. I'm not sure it holds true nearly as much as it used to, but there's no real harm in sticking to it if you're not in any hurry.
So assuming it takes six to nine months for the G5 PowerBook to come to market and another three months to see the first set of revisions, I figure it'll be right about this time next year that I walk into the local Apple Store and walk out with a new laptop under my arm. I absolutely refuse to buy a computer with borrowed money (you never want to borrow money to buy something that depreciates as quickly as a computer), so that means that I have about twelve months to set aside the kind of fundage required to grab myself a fifteen inch G5 PowerBook. If the current pricing structure holds true, then that means that I'm looking at a little under two grand.
Since I'm aware of situation and I know what I have to earmark between now and then, it shouldn't be too hard, especially considering that the reward will be owning my first brand new Mac since 1999. In the mean time, though, the trick lies in not spending any more money on my current laptop. I'd originally planned to add an external SuperDrive to this PowerBook when I bought it, but there's no point in doing so now, because my next laptop will undoubtedly come with one built-in (and when you're dealing with a laptop, you always want to go internal if you can). I'd also originally planned to upgrade the 512 megabytes of RAM to a full gigabyte, but it turns out that a "mere" 512 MB has been more than enough to keep from slowing me down thus far. Why buy more unless I reach a point where I need it?
And that's my new motto from here on in. Unless something needs repaired that keeps me from getting my work done, I'm officially calling a permanent moratorium on investing any further money into my current laptop, so that I can instead set that money aside for purchasing my next one. Or, to use a dialect that apparently only I can understand, I've "end-of-life'd" my G4 PowerBook. No hardware add-ons, no hardware upgrades, no repairing anything unless something breaks that I can't live without.
So now it's just a waiting game until the G5 PowerBook comes into existence and until I have the means to acquire it. Now that I've got my gameplan in place, I'll just keep pecking away on my current laptop until that day comes, as if nothing had happened at all.
You've got to love being a Mac user.
