Macurmudgeon 2.0

Last time, we looked at the rather disappointing announcements Apple made earlier this week, particularly the new MacIntel mini.

Now, courtesy of a sobering set of benchmarks over at ExtremeTech, comes the unvarnished truth about just how craptacular the integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor - which steals system RAM in order to do its work - really is:

We can state flatly that if you buy a system using Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics and want to play 3D games, invest at least $60 in an add-on card. If what you want is simply a system that can run standard office software, plus maybe play some DVD movies, then Intel's new graphics core is probably suitable.

So the transition to Intel will finally allow Macs to be perceived as viable gaming machines - except maybe not. But not to worry - if you want to do the normal sort of activities you're used to doing with a Mac, then this Intel graphics setup is "probably suitable."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. And of course, as bad as this is in a beige-box machine from some no-name PC maker, it's even worse in a Mac mini, becuase you can't upgrade the thing - there's no PCI slot or anything slot for an aftermarket graphics card. So much for playing Halo on your Mac mini hooked up to a 50" plasma set in the living room.

But surely, you say, there must be a reason for this graphics chip to be on this system board. There is, as ExtremeTech again explains:

Intel's new GMCH will probably run [Microsoft's] Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well. And Intel certainly wants that, because its OEMs sell truckloads of systems with integrated graphics into businesses. So businesses whose users want to use the Aero Glass interface will have a solution that works, but the IT budget won't be severely impacted.

So you see, there is a reason. Too bad that reason has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the design of Macs or the target market for Macs.

And the glory days of the Intel era are just beginning. Sigh.

The new Mac mini is far superior to the old one, no doubt about it - faster CPU, faster RAM, faster hard drive (sort of - it's 5400rpm SATA, as compared to 4200 or 5400rpm parallel ATA), and that apparently all-important extra USB port (why exactly is everyone so happy about that? I mean, it's nice and all, but really folks, get a grip...).

And yet... the magical $499 entry point is gone. The mini now starts at $599, thanks no doubt to the high price of the Intel Core CPU, which apparently costs Apple something upward of $200, as compared to the Freescale G4 it replaces, which these days reportedly comes in at under $100 when bought in bulk.

For your $599, you get only a single core CPU, and not a speed demon at that - a 1.5GHz Core Solo. You also get the infamous "integrated graphics" chip, which steals a minimum of 16 percent of your system RAM (80MB of the stock 512MB). Interestingly enough, this shared RAM setup hasn't existed in a Mac since the first days of the last major transition, when the Power Mac 6100/7100/8100 came out.

In more recent years, this sort of arrangement has been the Achilles' Heel of the PC world, the dealbreaker for gamers, the thing (along with craptastic design and cheap components) that has allowed the beige box makers to undercut Apple at the super low end. It's what has allowed us Mac Jedi to dismiss that segment of the price spectrum as fake and not worth buying anyway.

And now, folks, we've got exactly the same setup in the mini. Combine that with the price premium caused by the Intel Core CPU, and we're in a rather ironic situation - the move to Intel has made the Mac arguably less price-competitive with PCs instead of more competitive.

But of course, you will object that this new mini is still far superior. And you will be correct. Even comparing, ahem, Apples to Apples, the new $599 configuration is still a good deal compared to the previous $599 model - as long as you're willing to give up 20GB of hard drive capacity and DVD-burning capability (each of which, fortunately, can be regained now by selecting them as custom upgrade options for $50, which is indeed a reasonable price, especially for the SuperDrive).

Which brings us to the real issue: these minis are better than the old ones only because the old ones were so embarrassingly underpowered. A 125MHz G4 and a 4200rpm hard drive? Without the assistance of a time machine, you simply can't build a computer any slower than that these days. Anything new inevitably is going to be noticeably faster.

But don't delude yourself - it's not going to be 4X faster as Apple claims. To get that bump - which itself doesn't apply across the board - you've got to shell out $799, whereas to get the old G4 machine agsint which Apple's making its comparisons, you had to pay only $599. (The previous top-line mini was $699, but its performance was no better than the $599 model.)

Contrast this with the MacBook Pro. You get the same specs with only minor variations - no dual-layer DVD burner or FW800 port on the one hand, built-in iSight and MagSafe power connector on the other hand - FOR THE SAME PRICE. You get a full-on Core Duo, not a Core Solo, and faster RAM, and the price of admission is the same.

Not so with the poor mini.

Whatever voodoo Steve has used on Paul Otellini, he should kick it into overdrive so he can start sourcing Core Solos at a price that will allow for a return of the $499 mini, and for a $699 Core Duo equipped mini at the high end.

Until then, I say the mini is good, but not great.

And as for the new iPod HiFi, all I can say is this: yawn. If you can get any decent stereo separation or imaging with that unit, or if you can get truly clean bass out of it, I'll eat my proverbial hat.

From the Dept. of Actually, No, It Doesn't Mean That at All

Today's entry at the Infoworld.com "Enterprise Mac" weblog raises fears about the end of Microsoft Office for the Mac:

Roz Ho, the head of Microsoft Mac Business Unit, made her customary appearance at MacWorld Expo to announce that Microsoft and Apple and reached an agreement to support Office for the Mac for a least five years.

I know Microsoft. When the company "commits to support the product for a minimum of five years" means that the product will no longer be supported five years after this announcement. Existing users can live with that; their software is stable. But eventually the code will go into maintenance mode, and with the Mac BU, products like Virtual PC, Internet Explorer and Remote Desktop Connector.

Very scary, indeed. Except that Microsoft made the exact same pledge in 1997, and MS Office for Mac has been going strong for the past nine years.

The evidence, then, for MS dumping Mac Office five years from now is:

1. The Infoworld blogger "knows Microsoft";
   
2. Nothing;
   
3. Nothing; and
   
4. Nothing.
   

So, an IT industry writer spreads FUD about the industry standard office suite being available on the Mac, and that writer pens columns specifically about the enterprise (i.e. the business world). Color me shocked.

Back to your regularly scheduled Web page.

Here's David Pogue on the new iMacs:

What you'll discover is that the new iMac is deliciously fast when it's running Intel-ready software. Just turning the machine on is a joy, because starting up now takes 20 seconds instead of 60, like the previous model; you'll want to do it again and again. Programs open up a lot faster, too: GarageBand, for example, is ready for your musical inspiration in only 9 seconds, rather than 20. Web pages appear startlingly quickly: nytimes.com pops open in about 1 second (versus 2), Amazon is ready in 2 seconds (versus 4) and MSN appears in 6 seconds (versus 8).

In other words, if your computer world is complete with programs for e-mail, the Web, word processing, graphics viewing, music playing and editing of photos, movies, basic Web sites and music tracks, then choosing the IntelliMac over the regular iMac is a no-brainer. The computer comes preloaded with all the software you need, all Intel-ready. You get a heck of a lot more speed for the same price.

Pogue could have added the following, among others, to his list of computer tasks:

• Converting graphics files (Preview)
  
• Writing shell scripts (Terminal)
  
• General Unix mucking-about (Terminal again)
  
• Creating DVD movies (iDVD)
  
• Blogging (iWeb)
  
• Administering a server (Apache)
  
• Duplicating drives and volumes (Disk Utility)
  
• Making presentations and reading PowerPoint files (Keynote)
  
• Word processing and basic page layout (Pages)
  

Other than those omissions, though, Pogue hits it right on the head: the new IntelliMacs (great moniker, that - well done, David) are great, right now, as-is, for the majority of computer users. This is not to dismiss the very real needs of "pro" users, or the performance hit of Rosetta, or the glitches with non-Intel-native flash or java content.

But for the vast majority of everyday computer tasks, these are fantastic machines, particularly the iMacs, which are targeted to users who don't need expandability or portability (and therefore are more likely to have our needs met by the apps and uses Pogue and I list above).

So you can go ahead and wait for 64-bit Intel CPUs and Universal binaries from MS and Adobe (although with MS, really, how fast does Word really need to be? You can still type up the florid emanations of your mind's eye just fine under Rosetta). As for me, if I didn't already have an iMac G5, I'd snap up a Core Duo this second.

Yes, yes, I know, it comes as a shock that Tony Smith's site, with its generic-yet-trademarked name, snarky headlines, and constant talk of "boffins" and "punters," could possibly get under an unsuspecting reader's skin. But so it is.

Today's faux-sensational lead is "Google crushes Apple in battle of the brands". You see, an annual survey of the top global brands revealed that in Apple and Google's ongoing battle for brand supremacy, Google came out on top this year. In 2001, Apple was number one and Goole was fourth. In '02 and '03, Google took first with Apple second, while in '04 they switched places, with Apple retaking the lead.

This year, however, Google took the crown back, garnering number-one votes from fully 40% of respondents. Apple, as The Register® headline indicates, got totally crushed, earning a paltry 38% of the vote. That's right, Apple lost by two percentage points - clearly a total drubbing by the Google juggernaut.

Never mind that 40-to-38 is within the margin of error of the survey (whose sample size was a little over 2,500). And never mind that the third place winner, Skype, really was crushed at only 14 percent.

Never mind all of that. The Register®'s gotta get those click-throughs to earn its bling. So sure, Apple got crushed. Whatever you say, Tony.

The Consumer Electronics Stock Blog (CESB) is currently entertaining a discussion about whether or not Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer was being overly - or even deliberately - conservative in lowering its revenue and profit guidance for the upcoming Q2 of FY 2006, after a gangbusters report on Q1.

Cheap attention-grabber headlines like TheStreet.com's No Shine on Apple have been typical of the response to Oppenheimer's Q2 guidance.

So CESB wonders if Oppenheimer was just being coy, or if there really are reasons behind Apple's lowered expectations. Quoting an exchange between Oppenheimer and an analyst from Wednesday's Apple conference call, CESB criticizes Oppie for being evasive and not answering the question - an accusation that does little except pile more foolishness on TheStreet.com et al's snarky gloom-and-dooming.

The question remains, is Apple being conservative? And the answer is, absolutely - anything else wouldn't be prudent.

But I don't think Apple is being unduly conservative. Oppenheimer cites multiple reasons for the new guidance. And it's true that analysts already had factored some of them in - Q1 was a week longer than Q2 will be, and is always better than Q2 for seasonal reasons, for example.

But here's what analysts didn't necessarily already know, or at least what they weren't already sure about:

• That Intel based Macs would be announced in January;
  
• That Intel based laptops wouldn't be shipping until 5 or more weeks after announcement (and therefore until the halfway point of Q2 at best)
  
• That at the end of Q1/beginning of Q2 the iPod channel would have slightly more inventory in it than expected (except for 4GB nanos) - especially given the fact that Apple sold even more iPods than expected (a situation that does not intuitively match up with excess channel inventory left over after such a buying spree).
  
• That Apple has sufficient iMac G5 and Powerbook G4 stocks left that it will continue to sell them on the front page of the store, alongside Intel Macs.
  

And what all this means is:

• Powerbook sales will absolutely fall off a cliff, while MacBook Pro sales will be limited in their ability to compensate because of release date and likely initial supply issues.
  
• Intel iMacs now, and almost certainly MacBook Pros next month, are being shipped direct from Asia via air freight, which raises costs for Apple.
  
• iPod demand will be down from Q1, but beyond that the number of new iPods that will actually have to be manufactured (and therefore counted as new sales to the channel) will be even lower because of the channel inventory left over as of Jan. 1.
  
• PPC based iMacs and laptops will almost certainly have to be sold at significantly reduced prices by the middle of Q2, reducing revenue, while the production costs for those machines will of course remain unchanged since those machines presumably have already been manufactured.
  

Now, it's certainly possible that this week's lowered expectations are all part of a new practice Apple has gradually eased into since it started recovering from the dot-com bust thanks to the iPod - namely, Apple has been beating the street's estimates by noticeable, but not suspiciously large, margins for almost every quarter in the last couple of years. So it could be that Apple has taken to publicly predicting earnings at the very low end of its actual, internal estimates (instead of predicting something that might be closer to the middle of its internal estimates).

But beyond that, there's no evidence that Apple is doing anything shady here, that it's being any more conservative than normal, or that it's engaging in any kind of intentional low-balling.

It seems more likely that Apple is just smarter about its own business than everyone else.

MacBook Pro Superdrive not intentionally crippled - self-righteous geeks in disarrary - film at 11

There's been quite a bit of consternation at the fact that the Superdrive in the new MacBook Pro writes DVDs at 4X maximum speed, and lacks support for dual-layer (8.5GB) disc burning.

Why has Apple punked out on this feature, many wonder. Is Apple that cheap? Are they trying to subtract features in an effort to maintain profit margins while keeping the retail price of MacBook Pros the same as the old Powerbook G4? How could Apple be so stupid?!?

The answer, it appears, is physics. The new MacBooks use slimmer - or, one should say, even slimmer - Superdrives than the Powerbooks (and, presumably than most if not all currently shipping Windows laptops). As such, a 4X, non-dual-layer drive represents the current state of the art in that form factor. There simply is no such thing as an 8X dual-layer Superdrive that will fit in the MacBook Pro enclosure.

But, as Jason O'Grady reasonably points out in his column over at ZDNet, there most certainly will be such drives available in the near future - and you can count on Apple to pimp out MacBook Pros with them as soon as that happens.

So everyone, just chill, 'mkay?

Apple in the catbird seat - in the computer segment

AppleInsider reports that "research and investment firm PiperJaffray today raised its target price on shares of Apple Computer from $80 to $103." Probably not a bad idea since Apple's actual price has been higher than the old target price for half a week now.

What's really interesting, though, is PJ's reason for thinking Apple will continue to go up, up, up. Dismissing claims that Apple is a new "internet bubble" stock, PJ analyst Gene Munster says Apple is the real thing. Why? Well, because...

Looking beyond this year, the analyst sees the Apple story continuing to gain momentum in 2007, as the company is addressing the fastest growing market segments that touch the digital consumer.

Now look at what Bob Cringely says about what kind of year 2006 will be in the tech sector:

Two thousand and six will look completely different whether you are a home or business computer user. Home users will find this an exciting time, with new products and services galore, while business users -- especially BIG business users -- will have to suffer with the breakdown of traditional suppliers and with inevitable consolidation problems as their list of suppliers shrinks and product lines are merged.

Add it up and what do you have? Apple's much-maligned - and much made-fun-of - focus on the reviled "consumer" sector has now become the mark of its success. Despite all the noise about how Apple was neglecting Macs in favor of iPods, and despite the fears of a buying drought as customers held out for Intel-based Macs, Apple has managed to produce significant growth in Mac sales, beyond anyone's expectations. Moreover, 2006 figures to be a bang-up year in the individual consumer space, and Apple is among the best-positioned companies in the "fastest growing segments" of that space.

The Mac is a toy. Apple will fail beause it can't even get arrested in the enterprise. Apple is only about iPods. Meanwhile, Apple's market cap just surpassed Dell's.

How Sweet It Is.