Got ya beat- I spent $500 on the very first 5GB one.. lol.. we look like visionaries now though, right?
;-)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: What product has contributed most to Apple's turnaround?
- Thread starter Unspeaked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Got ya beat- I spent $500 on the very first 5GB one.. lol.. we look like visionaries now though, right?
;-)
Sure, there was the iPod halo effect. Sure, the iPhone captured everybody's attention.
But really what turned Apple around (and you can track in their sales and profits) was the Intel Mac. That's what won me back and I ordered an iMac on the day that they were announced at MacWorld 2006.
I know that there was nothing yet to run Windows apps on the Intel machines, but I spoke to a couple of programmer-friends and knew that there would be. That was a big deal in making the transition, as is Apple being able to leverage the rapid advancement of chips for which the R&D isn't only being funded and driven by Mac sales.
I bought a G1 5GB iPod too, but it didn't cause me to go back to Mac.
But really what turned Apple around (and you can track in their sales and profits) was the Intel Mac. That's what won me back and I ordered an iMac on the day that they were announced at MacWorld 2006.
I know that there was nothing yet to run Windows apps on the Intel machines, but I spoke to a couple of programmer-friends and knew that there would be. That was a big deal in making the transition, as is Apple being able to leverage the rapid advancement of chips for which the R&D isn't only being funded and driven by Mac sales.
I bought a G1 5GB iPod too, but it didn't cause me to go back to Mac.
Lots of ideas from NeXT went into OS X, including aspects of the Dock, however I don't think you can reasonably call OS X a "derivative" of NeXT. OSX has just as many ideas from OS 9.
The return of Steve Jobs was seminal for Apple and the iMac was a signifier of this.
You're right. Without Jobs, none of this would have ever happened.
In fact, every choice on this poll happened because of Jobs.
I change my vote to OTHER: The Return of Steve Jobs to Apple.
The iMac in my opinion truly was the first new product that was truly innovative out of Apple in many years. It truly opened up the doors for many new products that were inspired off of this new, radical way of thinking. While many individuals state that the iPod and iPhone inspired the designs of many of Apple's current products, I truly believe the iMac strongly influenced Apple's direction for many years after.
Yeah, but would there even be a market for intel macs to run Windows on like there is now were it not for the iPod Halo effect with Windows users? If you remember there was quite the uproar when the intel decision was announced.. This wasn't something that Apple devotee's were interested in, and Windows users really considered macs a toy prior to, and well into the beginning stages of OSX.. Windows users were, and still remain, a very tough sell on the whole concept of macs.. In some ways OSX had to perform at ridiculous levels even to get looked at because very few people that didn't use macs respected them.. I know, I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm just trying to make the point that without one heck of an OS none of this would be happening because Windows users had no interest in even considering a mac... even as the writing was becoming more and more clear on the wall most people still weren't interested.. just creating that market for those intel macs took something special ..
Yeah, I don't know much about NeXt other than what I've read.. I remember it all unfolding back then, but I never actually saw NeXt in action..
here's no doubt that SJ's vision is what drives this company.. GREAT POINT!!
That's what I'm saying, we deserve some kind of medal or certificate for putting up with the nay-sayers.
Hmm...
I looked at this question in two ways:
1) What brought Apple out from the "dark ages"
and
2) What brought Apple into the forefront and into its current sales boom?
To answer that question, I naturally turned to the iMac first. What a revolutionary computer that was.
Arguably the hallmark of '90s style and the epitome of how far the personal computer had come (not to mention a leader as it forged ahead with new technology and abandoned the old floppy drive), the iMac helps answer #1, but it doesn't fully answer it.
I think what really brought Apple out from the "dark ages" was a concerted effort at being more cautious with markets and how to enter them. As a result, Apple's product line became gradually more refined and the products Apple put out became even better (and leagues ahead of most PC competitors).
Now that brings us to #2: why the explosion in popularity?
I think this question is usually answered with "iPod." However, I have problems with such a simple answer. Granted the iPod is one of the most popular consumer products out there, but I have a hard time believing it is the sole reason people would "switch." An iPod is eye-catching and certainly allows people to say, "hey, they also make computers," but I don't think it's enough to get people to buy computers.
Which brings me to what I chose in the poll: Intel Macs. Now I certainly believe that the "halo" effect was in force before the Intel switch, but I believe it really caught fire during the summer of 2005. With the Megahertz Myth no longer a problem, I believe it became easier for prospective buyers that may have once said "hey, they also make computers," to change that phrase to, "hey, I should buy one of their computers."
I think that really explains the story of Apple's recent explosive growth. With Macs now able to compete directly against PC competitors, it becomes easier for buyers to say, "I want to buy a Mac," and once that happens, sales simply explode (as they have in the past few years).
I looked at this question in two ways:
1) What brought Apple out from the "dark ages"
and
2) What brought Apple into the forefront and into its current sales boom?
To answer that question, I naturally turned to the iMac first. What a revolutionary computer that was.
Arguably the hallmark of '90s style and the epitome of how far the personal computer had come (not to mention a leader as it forged ahead with new technology and abandoned the old floppy drive), the iMac helps answer #1, but it doesn't fully answer it. I think what really brought Apple out from the "dark ages" was a concerted effort at being more cautious with markets and how to enter them. As a result, Apple's product line became gradually more refined and the products Apple put out became even better (and leagues ahead of most PC competitors).
Now that brings us to #2: why the explosion in popularity?
I think this question is usually answered with "iPod." However, I have problems with such a simple answer. Granted the iPod is one of the most popular consumer products out there, but I have a hard time believing it is the sole reason people would "switch." An iPod is eye-catching and certainly allows people to say, "hey, they also make computers," but I don't think it's enough to get people to buy computers.
Which brings me to what I chose in the poll: Intel Macs. Now I certainly believe that the "halo" effect was in force before the Intel switch, but I believe it really caught fire during the summer of 2005. With the Megahertz Myth no longer a problem, I believe it became easier for prospective buyers that may have once said "hey, they also make computers," to change that phrase to, "hey, I should buy one of their computers."
I think that really explains the story of Apple's recent explosive growth. With Macs now able to compete directly against PC competitors, it becomes easier for buyers to say, "I want to buy a Mac," and once that happens, sales simply explode (as they have in the past few years).
The iPod was the first extremely user-friendly mp3 player to come out, and made people from ALL generations take notice - not just computer people.
Mac OS X is Nextstep with Aqua slapped on, the Carbon framework added for backwards compatibility, and a few other new frameworks (e.g. graphics related).
I think the iPod was what really did it. The bondi-blue iMacs sure did help, but they were just getting things started. The iPod is what is putting Apple back into people's minds again. Now everyone I know is considering a Mac for their next computer. It is amazing, and I'm glad I've been a part of it since '95
Mac OS X is Nextstep with Aqua slapped on, the Carbon framework added for backwards compatibility, and a few other new frameworks (e.g. graphics related).
I think the iPod was what really did it. The bondi-blue iMacs sure did help, but they were just getting things started. The iPod is what is putting Apple back into people's minds again. Now everyone I know is considering a Mac for their next computer. It is amazing, and I'm glad I've been a part of it since '95
Hey, step aside newbie. I've had Apple stickers since 1988.
The underpinnings are definitely NeXTSTEP, you're correct about that. I was referring more to the GUI.
I think it was definitely the iMac. Sure, the iPod has put Apple on top, but they most likely would not have made the iPod if it weren't for the iMac.
It seems these are the schools of thought behind people choosing each option:
iMac People picking the iMac think that Apple was on the verge of going under and the introduction of their first "must-have" product in ages at the dawning of the internet age was what turned things around for Apple.
iPod People picking the iPod think that even though the iMac helped keep Apple going for the short term, it was far from the heights it reached after the iPod was introduced and everyone had an Apple product in their back pocket.
iPhone People (person?) picking the iPhone thinks that it has the greatest potential for Apple's future success.
Intel Macs I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think people picking the Intel Macs think they had the biggest impact on switchers, and have contributed most to Apple's recent increase in market share.
Mac OS X People picking OS X think that the introduction of a true next-gen operating system kept Apple at the forefront of the computer world, helped keep current users happy and contributed to switchers making the leap from Windows.
Looking at it like this, everyone has valid points. I mean, the person picking the iPhone really isn't looking at things any differently than the ones who say the iPod. Apple was already successful when the iPod was released, it just introduced the brand to new markets and new users. The same can be said for the iPhone: Apple was doing great when it came out, but now there's even more people who own one of their products and pay attention to the brand.
That's why I stand behind what I said earlier about OS X. It's the one constant throughout this whole thing, and unlike the iMac, iPod or iPhone which all had specific windows of time in which they were the "hot" product at Apple, OS X has been an underlying presence that has satisfied long time Mac users and brought new ones abroad to.
It could be argued - and probably should be argued - that the purpose of all the other things, from Intel Macs to iPods to the iPhone to Apple TV to the iTunes Music Store and on and on, are to eventually expose people to OS X and get them to make the switch.
When people say iPod halo effect, they're not talking about someone moving from a Shuffle to a Mini. They're talking about someone dipping their toes into the Apple waters with a music player or Phone but then diving in with a Mac - a Mac running OS X. If OS X wasn't what it is, the connection to the consumer would likely end at iPod...
iMac People picking the iMac think that Apple was on the verge of going under and the introduction of their first "must-have" product in ages at the dawning of the internet age was what turned things around for Apple.
iPod People picking the iPod think that even though the iMac helped keep Apple going for the short term, it was far from the heights it reached after the iPod was introduced and everyone had an Apple product in their back pocket.
iPhone People (person?) picking the iPhone thinks that it has the greatest potential for Apple's future success.
Intel Macs I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think people picking the Intel Macs think they had the biggest impact on switchers, and have contributed most to Apple's recent increase in market share.
Mac OS X People picking OS X think that the introduction of a true next-gen operating system kept Apple at the forefront of the computer world, helped keep current users happy and contributed to switchers making the leap from Windows.
Looking at it like this, everyone has valid points. I mean, the person picking the iPhone really isn't looking at things any differently than the ones who say the iPod. Apple was already successful when the iPod was released, it just introduced the brand to new markets and new users. The same can be said for the iPhone: Apple was doing great when it came out, but now there's even more people who own one of their products and pay attention to the brand.
That's why I stand behind what I said earlier about OS X. It's the one constant throughout this whole thing, and unlike the iMac, iPod or iPhone which all had specific windows of time in which they were the "hot" product at Apple, OS X has been an underlying presence that has satisfied long time Mac users and brought new ones abroad to.
It could be argued - and probably should be argued - that the purpose of all the other things, from Intel Macs to iPods to the iPhone to Apple TV to the iTunes Music Store and on and on, are to eventually expose people to OS X and get them to make the switch.
When people say iPod halo effect, they're not talking about someone moving from a Shuffle to a Mini. They're talking about someone dipping their toes into the Apple waters with a music player or Phone but then diving in with a Mac - a Mac running OS X. If OS X wasn't what it is, the connection to the consumer would likely end at iPod...
I'd say iPod
Yes, the iMac sold very well...and Mac OS X was huge(need for Apple to be be around), but the iPod put them back at the top of a market, and got people to look at their computers.
iPhone and Intel Macs are great, but not the reason for Apple's turnaround, they came to late in the game
Yes, the iMac sold very well...and Mac OS X was huge(need for Apple to be be around), but the iPod put them back at the top of a market, and got people to look at their computers.
iPhone and Intel Macs are great, but not the reason for Apple's turnaround, they came to late in the game
Keeping with that line of thinking, these are all things that were around before the word "iPod" was ever uttered in the Mac community:
iMac
Final Cut Pro
Mac OS X
Apple Retail Stores
Would these not constitute a turn around? If Apple were to end there and not introduce the iPod, would it not be a very successful technology company today? Maybe not, but it's hard to tell...
Did the iMac save Apple? Yes.
Would Apple be here today without the iPod? Yes.
Therefore, logically the iMac has contributed the most to Apple's turnaround.
However, without the iPod Apple wouldn't have been anywhere near as big as they are today ($15 billion cash reserve anyone?), but I'm still voting for the iMac.
Would Apple be here today without the iPod? Yes.
Therefore, logically the iMac has contributed the most to Apple's turnaround.
However, without the iPod Apple wouldn't have been anywhere near as big as they are today ($15 billion cash reserve anyone?), but I'm still voting for the iMac.
So without the iMac the iPod wouldn't have happened? I will say this is a debate over the iMac and iPod. I voted iMac was the biggest reason for the turnaround. But it is VERY debate-able.
I feel that the iMac was the re-awakening of Apple and that it brought the company back into the black. The iMac is responsible for changing the computing industry and introducing 'color' in computer enclosures. Totally revolutionary.
The iPod is the second punch in the 'one-two-punch' of Apple's 2nd revolution.
Good Poll.