Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1.    #1  
    As the rumors have long surmised, the Cube is history. I may still get one because the real estate on my desk is miniscule. Moreover, it seemed like a necessary addition to my Visor. One cool device deserves another.

    The Cube was basically too cool and too expensive for its presumed user.

    Long live the iceBook!
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  2. #2  
    Originally posted by Potus
    The Cube was basically too cool and too expensive for its presumed user.
    no, the cube was too impracticle and unexpandable for anyone in their right mind to buy.

    mc
  3.    #3  
    Originally posted by mensachicken


    no, the cube was too impracticle and unexpandable for anyone in their right mind to buy.

    mc
    Since most computer users rarely "expand" their computers other than to add memory, what's your point. I've used my pci slots, of course, but when I talk about this with most of colleagues and friends: tego. Most people buy computers based on mhz numbers which they don't understand and never use to the full capacity.
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  4. #4  
    Originally posted by Potus


    Since most computer users rarely "expand" their computers other than to add memory, what's your point. I've used my pci slots, of course, but when I talk about this with most of colleagues and friends: tego. Most people buy computers based on mhz numbers which they don't understand and never use to the full capacity.
    you say "most" people. i referred to a "person in their right mind." they're two different things.

    your proposal that the cube was "too cool" is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? expensive? yes, but only because it was not expandable, as i pointed out. anyone who is gonna spend that much cash on a box is gonna want it to be expandable. just about every review i read of it questioned its target audience. people who spend a good chunk on a computer do look at its shelf life, regardless of what "most" people, yourself included, think.

    mc
  5.    #5  
    Originally posted by mensachicken


    you say "most" people. i referred to a "person in their right mind." they're two different things.

    your proposal that the cube was "too cool" is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? expensive? yes, but only because it was not expandable, as i pointed out. anyone who is gonna spend that much cash on a box is gonna want it to be expandable. just about every review i read of it questioned its target audience. people who spend a good chunk on a computer do look at its shelf life, regardless of what "most" people, yourself included, think.

    mc
    How many Macs do you own?
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  6. #6  
    I for one am happy to see Apple kill the cube. It was a complete flop, and its mere existence was keeping the price on G4 towers at unreasonably high prices. I'm hoping now that Apple will start slashing prices on the G4 to fill the gap.

    Although it was a failure, I still look up to Apple for, once again, breaking new ground with design innovation. It's not like any PC manufacturer could ever pull an original idea out its ***!
  7.    #7  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    I for one am happy to see Apple kill the cube. It was a complete flop, and its mere existence was keeping the price on G4 towers at unreasonably high prices. I'm hoping now that Apple will start slashing prices on the G4 to fill the gap.

    Although it was a failure, I still look up to Apple for, once again, breaking new ground with design innovation. It's not like any PC manufacturer could ever pull an original idea out its ***!
    Good points!
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  8. #8  
    The did die because it was too expensive not because of its expandability. I don't use Macs but I've never seen them to be that expandable to start with on the internal side, of course the Mac was the one that made external expansion really big by supporting fire wire & USB. The cube seemed to be practically a high end laptop jumbled around to be in the shape of the cube.
    Matt Nichols
    VigoSpraxPalm@Yahoo.com
  9. #9  
    I've always thought the Cube was a great design but priced out of the market. I love the size, hate the price.

    Expandability is good to have, but not always a requirement. I wonder how many Visor owners have never purchased a Springboard module? The Dell tower that I have at home has had two things added to it: an ethernet card and 128MB of memory.

    I think the Cube comes with ethernet already, and it is possible to add memory, so it would have worked for me. However, it was waaay to pricey when it was introduced.

    I can't wait to see what Apple releases at MacWorld. All I want right now is a major rev of OS X and some new hardware that I can entice my dad into buying (I'm getting tired of supporting his WinPC).
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  10. #10  
    Very cool from design standpoint. My wife (who is a designs stuff with me and is not techy at all) thought that it was beautiful.

    Not so cool from price standpoint.

    I'm not going to say they were wrong to make an inflexible platform, because I'm still using an unadorned 233Mhz Compaq (from like '95). I think that if any of the really neat features (no fan, wacky speakers) make it into a future Mac it would be worth the fiasco. I always thought of it more as a 'concept car' that Apple decided to make a limited run of.

    Maybe this means that I could soon pick one up for a more reasonable price somewhere? A Cube would look great in our design store!(we do glass, so the translucent case would fit perfect)

    My mom would have loved one. She had an Apple IIC(?) for years. Her company just recently gave all it's employees deals on Dells, so she's now in Windows land.

    Getting the right mix of style and substance seems to be hard for computer engineers. Apple tries harder than anyone else though. (I haven't really seen any compelling designs coming from the other side, that includes Sony.)

    That's enough, it's after 2:00 A.M. and I'm going to Phoenix later. Back on Monday, don't forget to let the dog out!

    Michael
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #11  
    James, all Macs come with ethernet ability, as part of AppleTalk.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  12. #12  
    I agree with most things said. The cube wasn't expandable, which was fine, but it was in the same price range as the expandable models. So most people shelling out that kind of money would naturally go with the expandable option.

    I used a cube for a while, and it was OK. If were $500 cheaper, i think they would have sold a lot more of them.

    To Apple's credit, it was a great design experiment. I'm glad they're trying designs like that.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Getting the right mix of style and substance seems to be hard for computer engineers. Apple tries harder than anyone else though. (I haven't really seen any compelling designs coming from the other side, that includes Sony.)
    [rantmode: on] Damn straight! Apple is the only manufacturer in the entire computer industry that succeeds in developing truly sexy hardware. Why can't PCs match Apple? My guess is it's because OEMs such as DELL really don't give a damn what you think of their products. They are only interested in volume sales at low margins. This "beige box" philosophy has worn thin on me. I'm in line to buy my next computer over the next couple weeks, and for the first time, I am stuck at a crossroads. When I bought my last system back in June of 98, I was like a kid in a candy store. Now, here I am ready to buy my next system, and I'm not even excited. It more of a burden actually. I purchased a DELL Pentium II 350, which at the time was the latest and greatest. It makes me sick that after 3 years, nothing has changed at all. Dell still makes the exact same enclosure for the 4100 series. There have been only mild attempts at producing stylish enclosures, and most of them are disgusting..especially Compaq's creations. I've seen only one desktop in recent months that had any appeal to it, and that was the DELL Dimension 8100. It has a jet black tower with silver trim. But it doesn't even come close to rivaling the PowerMac G4. I may end up buying the DELL, if I don't jump into the pool of Applesauce.

    Really, I think the primary obstacle that has held back design innovation in the PC sector, is the sheer glut of OEMs. There's just too many of them. Think about it, how many beige box makers do we need? I'm hoping more of them will pull out or go bankrupt. Perhaps then we will see some innovation. But the PC industry, in many respects, is dying. Look at the companies that have pulled out of the biz, or will soon: Micron, E-machines, IBM, and even Compaq is likely to abandon consumer PCs by next year. Oddly enough, I think this high attrition rate will actually give Apple some boost for a comeback. What will consumers think when they go to Circuit City or Best Buy, and only see one or two brand names left on the shelf? [rantmode: off]

    Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now. Back to the topic at hand:

    Apple has always been at the forefront of design innovation. Even if you are a dyed in the wool PC zealot (as I once was), you really can't help but fall in love with Apples products. Look at the Tbook for example, who wouldn't want one of these things? The new iBook is even sexier looking than the SONY Vaio. And, while I'm not exactly iMac material, I have to admit it is an attention getter.

    The Mac community has a certain passion that can't be described. It's just something you can only see in their eyes. They glisten when you mention Apple. Love them or hate them, they really do believe in their platform. Not as a product, but as a way of life. I recently downloaded a QuickTime movie, from Apple's site, of the grand opening at Apples Glendale Galleria. It shows the throngs of people standing in line waiting to get in. How many people would stand in line for 3 hours waiting to get into a Gateway Country store? or a DELL store? Hell, I wouldn't waste the gas to drive there. Apple is the only company that really does care what you think of their products. And for that they deserve our respect. Even if your not a Mac user.

    As for myself, it's becoming less likely that I'll switch platforms. There are many issues that have me concerned about switching sides, but even if I don't buy a Mac this time I definitely will eventually. Who knows, we'll see in two weeks. If a famous Jewish guy can part the Red Sea, perhaps another famous Jewish guy can convert a PC geek like me into a Mac user!
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by homer
    I agree with most things said. The cube wasn't expandable, which was fine, but it was in the same price range as the expandable models. So most people shelling out that kind of money would naturally go with the expandable option.
    thanks Homer. you said exactly what i was trying to say... only properly!

    to me, it's illogical to say that the cube failed *simply* because it was too expensive. "expensive" always needs a qualifier. i doubt anyone would deny that if the cube had the expandability of, say, the 9500 in its day, that it could have been called too expensive. some people do spend that much on a computer (actually, i have no idea what the price is in the usa--i'm in canada and am basing my assumptions on that). so, if it were possible to say "well it was too expensive" would imply that no computer can succeed at that price because no one would buy it. this is not the case.

    the cube failed because its features did not match its price point. to me, its biggest missing feature was expandability--which is what anyone who spends that much on a computer is looking for.

    to the person who said (paraphrasing) "people aren't looking for expandability... i wonder how many visor owners don't own springboards" i say: well, that's a completely different issue. the reason that i bought a visor in the first place is cause it was CHEAPER than the palms that were available at the time and it was more expandable. if it had not been as expandable as it is, i still would have bought it because of the price point (and its competition, at the time, was *not* expandable either). however, the cube was not cheaper than units that could do much more (be expanded!).

    i think i just have a very different opinion of apple than most people. most folks seem to profess that the company makes beautiful looking computers because they care about design. i happen to believe they do it cause there is absolutely no other reason to buy their computers. now i'm sure people will jump down my throat about this but hey, that's how i see it. to me, they're a great design company that makes consistently stupid business decisions.

    to the person who originally told me i was wrong about the expandability issue, i ask "why, then, when 'clone' companies were licensed to make macs (powercomputing, umax, etc.) did all those company makes a superior computer to apple?" i challenge you to find me a single head-to-head review of any mac to any mac clone in which the apple machine comes out ahead. why were these computers superior? mostly, expandability. they were also cheaper, while having this expandability!

    however, when it came time to renew the licences and apple instead bought them out or cancelled them or whatever they did--they learned zero from the companies who'd smoked them at their own game.

    just my opinions of course. i'm sure all you macheads will disagree.

    mc.
  15. #15  
    Really, I think the primary obstacle that has held back design innovation in the PC sector, is the sheer glut of OEMs.
    I agree. Everyone is competing on volume and price. When you are looking at 10 different brands of the same basic machine, the consumer is less likely to shell out $200 extra for the colored plastic case.

    So, when a PC manufacturer tries 'innovative' design, it is usually very cheap, aesthetic-only design. Which naturally fails.

    Sony is able to produce better-designed products because they were willing to differentiate themselves on their price point. Sony machines cost at least $1000 more than the standard beige boxes. They ARE appealing to a completely different segment of the market.

    Apple as the advantage of also having a completly different OS/Architecture to help them differentiate themselves. It's easier for them to take more risks.

    Plus the CEO makes movies like Toy Story...which probably shows a bit more design creativity than your typical computer corp CEO.

    Apple has always been at the forefront of design innovation.
    Not always. They were early on, but they hit a real dark period in the early 90's. They, too, were pumping out clumsy beige boxes.

    Why? Because they had incredibly high margins at that time, and there was really no need to be any better at design than they were. By the time PCs caught up and Jobs took over, they HAD to differentiate themselves even more. Along came good industrial design.

    most folks seem to profess that the company makes beautiful looking computers because they care about design. i happen to believe they do it cause there is absolutely no other reason to buy their computers.
    I think Jobs IS sincere in his quest for beautiful design. That said, the reality, I believe, is much closer to your latter statement...that there really isn't a compelling reason to buy their computers otherwise.

    that's how i see it. to me, they're a great design company that makes consistently stupid business decisions.
    I think they're a great company that had a line of bad CEOs. REALLY STUPID CEOs. Jobs is a good CEO. A very arrogant CEO, but that IS a part of apple, isn't it?

    i ask "why, then, when 'clone' companies were licensed to make macs (powercomputing, umax, etc.) did all those company makes a superior computer to apple?"
    Well, for a few reasons. 1) at the time, apple was making crappy computers. 2) the clones weren't necessarily better, just cheaper. Which goes back to our original point, why buy one PC when you can get pretty much the same box for cheaper?

    however, when it came time to renew the licences and apple instead bought them out or cancelled them or whatever they did--they learned zero from the companies who'd smoked them at their own game.
    No...I think Jobs learned a lot. He learned that they don't want to be in the same price/volume battle as the PC market. They knew their niche, and wanted to preserve it. Allowing the clones to continue would have destroyed it.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    the cube failed because its features did not match its price point. to me, its biggest missing feature was expandability--which is what anyone who spends that much on a computer is looking for.
    Agreed. Few people were willing to pay $1800 for a machine that offered little expandability. Apple slashed prices repeatedly, and it still didn't move. Face it, no one wants this thing. Apple is making the right decision by pulling the plug.

    ...i happen to believe they do it cause there is absolutely no other reason to buy their computers. now i'm sure people will jump down my throat about this but hey, that's how i see it. to me, they're a great design company that makes consistently stupid business decisions.
    I wouldn't say that. Macs still dominate in many key fields. Ask anyone who works in the music industry if there is no reason to buy a Mac. When you go into a music store, remember that most of those CD albums were rendered in a professional recording studio running ProTools on PowerMacs. And the next time you buy a magazine or pick up a newspaper, take a good look...because it was designed and layed out on Macs running QuarkXpress. Even PC World Magazine is designed on Macs.

    As for the "style" issue, your right. Apple does this in an attempt to make its products stand out in the crowd. But IT WORKS! Everyone recognizes an iMac the moment they see it. How many people look at a beige box from a distance and say..."Ooh look, Gateway!" No one, because they don't care. This is, partly, what I believe is killing this industry. People just don't care about computers anymore because they are problematic and unexciting. PCs just aren't fun anymore. This is why I won't build my own box, it's not worth the trouble anymore.
    Last edited by foo fighter; 07/05/2001 at 11:28 AM.
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    I wouldn't say that. Macs still dominate in many key fields. Ask anyone who works in the music industry if there is no reason to buy a Mac. When you go into a music store, remember that most of those CD albums were rendered in a professional recording studio running ProTools on PowerMacs. And the next time you buy a magazine or pick up a newspaper, take a good look...because it was designed and layed out on Macs running QuarkXpress. Even PC World Magazine is designed on Macs.
    you're definitely correct about the music thing and i'd have agreed 100% on the graphic design thing a few years back but i think that that is changing, though admittedly very slowly. companies like adobe used to always release the upgrades to their software first for mac. this simply isn't the case any longer. partially, i think this is due to the web. most web designers work on PCs--and for good reason: 92% of their audience is on PCs. i think the print world will go that way eventually as well. the main reason, in my opinion, that it hasn't as of yet is because the output houses are the places that decide what should be used in house. no one wants to design on a PC and then ship to their printer and have things converted because it simply doesn't convert as well as it should.

    until the output places convert, the designers won't.


    As for the "style" issue, your right. Apple does this in an attempt to make its products stand out in the crowd. But IT WORKS! Everyone recognizes an iMac the moment they see it. How many people look at a beige box from a distance and say..."Ooh look, Gateway!" No one, because they don't care.
    i agree. but only because *I* don't care. i don't give a rat's *** what my computer looks like--and i make my living as a designer! the whole thing with the apple design to me reminds me of when i was young and used to ride bmx bikes.

    we used to get our parents to buy us expensive bmx trick bikes (upwards of $1000 in the mid-80s) cause they looked great and all the best riders rode them (in magazines or whatnot). however, it didn't make us any better at trick riding. one day we were all hanging at the 7-eleven with our fancy bikes and some poor kid from the projects comes by with his canadian tire bike and he MURDERED us trick riding. since that day i find it pretty laughable that people think their tools are responsible for their abilities. i could care less what my computer looks like. it's what i can do with it that matters.

    This is, partly, what I believe is killing this industry. People just don't care about computers anymore because they are problematic and unexciting. PCs just aren't fun anymore. This is why I won't build my own box, it's not worth the trouble anymore.
    what i don't understand is why you care that the industry dying? i think it's great! the less computers the better! i have the same reaction when people tell me "no one watches television anymore". great! kill your tv! i'm glad PCs "aren't fun anymore". people need to pull themselves away from their boxes and get outside and live their lives. death to the pc industry!

    mc
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    you're definitely correct about the music thing and i'd have agreed 100% on the graphic design thing a few years back but i think that that is changing, though admittedly very slowly.
    It is definitely changing. An increasing number of graphics pros are switching to PC. Apple has to find a way to keep designers on Macs, or they are in deep doo doo. With PCs performance approaching SGI workstations in power, that's going to be an uphill battle.

    companies like adobe used to always release the upgrades to their software first for Mac. this simply isn't the case any longer. partially, i think this is due to the web. most web designers work on PCs--and for good reason: 92% of their audience is on PCs.
    Most creative apps were built for MacOS and were then ported to Windows. Now the reverse is true. I'm a web designer myself, and I would agree 100% with you that the vast majority of web designers use PCs. There are a lot of Mac based designers, but the PC rules the web. I talked to a friend who is also a W/D, and he said at last years Macromedia Dreamweaver Conference (Dreamweaver ROCKS!!), the PC users outnumbered Mac users by nearly 3-1. That's one of the main reason(s) why I most likely won't be switching to a Mac for my work.

    i agree. but only because *I* don't care. i don't give a rat's *** what my computer looks like--and i make my living as a designer!
    Fair enough. But I do care what my PC looks like. That wasn't true 3 years ago, but it is now. I consider myself a technology evangelist, and I belong to the school of thought that personal computers should be fun as well as being a tool. Using a beige box won't make you any less productive, but the same is true of stylish systems. What's wrong with having your cake and eating it too?

    what i don't understand is why you care that the industry dying? i think it's great! the less computers the better! i have the same reaction when people tell me "no one watches television anymore". great! kill your tv! i'm glad PCs "aren't fun anymore". people need to pull themselves away from their boxes and get outside and live their lives. death to the pc industry!
    Why? Mainly because I love computers, and it pains me to see the industry I once loved run itself right into the ground with its own stupidity. OEMs are still making consumer PCs for a computing environment that doesn't exist anymore. I'm hoping that the threat of annihilation will cause these companies to re-evaluate their products. In all fairness, that does seem to be happening slowly but surely. The DELL system I made reference to before is an example of that. It does look rather sleek and stylish.

    I don't believe the PC is dead by any means. If I did, I would be posting this from my Palm rather than my PC.
  19. #19  
    i think the print world will go that way eventually as well.
    Print Designers are very set in their ways. They use Macs, Photoshop, and Quark XPress. That's all. That's all they will ever use. They are extremely slow to adapt to new technologies.

    There ARE reasons that print houses use Macs extensively...namely it is VERY easy to get 50 macs up and networked and to maintain them.

    I hate to say this, but a lot of print designers are 'dumb' to technology. A two button mouse would totally throw them for a ride. Yea, that's a bit of a stereotype, but there is a lot of truth in it too.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  20. #20  
    As a side note: I think Apple is going to do exceptionally well with making LCDs standard for all their computers, their screens are really sweet.
    Matt Nichols
    VigoSpraxPalm@Yahoo.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions