Monthly Archives: October 2008
â€¢ The first is the Larry Pleau idea that I first detailed this past weekend, which essentially would change the delayed-penalty rule so that the penalized team would have to fully clear the puck from its defensive zone to get a stoppage in play rather than simply needing to possess the puck. The St. Louis Blues GM believes it would create more offensive chances with the sixth attacker on the ice for a bit longer before a whistle blows. He’s probably right. I like this one.
â€¢ The second has to do with hand passes and making them more consistent all over the ice. Right now, players are allowed hand passes in the defensive zone but nowhere else. The idea being discussed is not to allow it anymore in the defensive zone, just like the rest of the ice. I highly doubt this will happen. Blowing the whistle every time there’s a hand pass in the defensive zone would simply create more stoppages in play. It’s not what we’re looking for in the game right now.
â€¢ The third idea, and perhaps most interesting of all, is an idea from Montreal Canadiens GM Bob Gainey. He proposes that players in the defensive zone must have at least one skate on the ice when blocking shots. So, instead of having players collapsing all over the ice and sliding all over the place, Gainey believes this would allow for more pucks to get through from the point and, hence, create more scoring chances. Great idea by Gainey, although it really puts the onus on the referees.
Three possible rule changes talked about at the NHL GM meetings. I really like the changes made this year with where penalty face offs are dropped and the icing rule where they don’t allow the TV timeouts. Not entirely sure why they didn’t do the latter in the first place, but it really puts the onus teams to play defense well; fewer places to “get a lazy out”, and that leads to scoring and scoring chances.
And they’re minor things — but minor things that can have notable impacts.
For all fans have focussed on things like bigger nets or goalie gear changes (myself included), it’s interesting to note the league is spending most of its time on less dramatic (obvious) changes. All to the good. And that continues this year with these three possible changes.
I really like the first two; in fact, I was planning on writing something on the second one recommending it. If what you want is to increase scoring chances, don’t make it easier for the defense. Force them to use their sticks, not just toss the puck around. I’m tempted, actually, to extend that further, and outlaw batting the puck down with a hand at all (like soccer), even preventing a player from knocking it down to himself in the offensive zone. If they do, treat it like icing, faceoff in their defensive zone, no player change.
Both of these ideas I’d love to see implemented.
The third? At first glance, I really like it — but the devil is in the details. Enforcement is a bear; will players learn how to accidentally fall on demand, and how do referees handle it? what’s the penalty? treated like icing? Is that something that turns into a “good penalty to take?” category? This one gets really complicated really fast, so I’ll be curious to see how the league moves it forward.
But when about 50% of shots attempted are now not getting through to the goalie, this is an area that really can impact the game in positive ways; doesn’t matter about goal size or goalie gear size if the puck never gets there, right?
Hmm. Maybe the answer is to make shin pads somewhat less protective… Not enough that players aren’t save, but maybe enough that players think twice…
With even more media attention on Apple and the rumors surrounding the latest release, more sites have gone out of their way to call out those who got things wrong. While this has given an opportunity for some to say that you shouldn’t listen rumors at all, I think it just goes to show that sources matter and not all rumors are created equal.
Amused to see referrers into my blog from MacRumor.com. turns out, they took a shot at me (not surprising).
The link to my posting was in this phrase: While this has given an opportunity for some to say that you shouldn’t listen rumors at all, which, while I was fairly critical of the rumor sites (with justification, since THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT KEY DETAILS AGAIN), that’s not at all what I said. What I said was this:
Chuqui 3.0: Thoughts on the new Macbooks — and the circus that preceded them…:
It’s not that you shouldn’t read the sites; they have their purpose. Just don’t take them so damn seriously.
So yes, Macrumors, sources matter and not all rumors are created equal, but accuracy matters even more, and if Macrumors can mis-interpret (or mis-spin, or simply misrepresent blatantly, choose your poison) such a clear and straightforward statement, well, doesn’t that call into question the accuracy of anything else they say?
Which is, in long form, the answer to the question “gee, Chuq, why do you read AppleInsider and not MacRumors?” — and why, if you feel the need to follow a rumor site, you ought to follow AppleInsider.
While I have my issues with AppleInsider as well (honestly, I get really tired of them writing in that “I am speaking in my adult journalist voice, so you must take me seriously”), they pretty much get what they exist for. And that authorial voice I really blame on a bunch of fan geeks growing up reading Mac the Knife in MacWeek. Gah.
Now that everyone has fallen quiet in the post-announce exhaustion of the masses….
Chuqui 3.0: Apple releases MacBook, MacBook Pro Software Update 1.2:
Chuck, I would be very interested in your opinion on Apple leaving the Firewireport out on the new MacBook. As for many others (see the forums) it is a no-buy for me. It almost feels like a slap in the face.
The answer here is pretty simple to me: USB 2.0 won the connectivity fight in the lower end of the market. Note also that the MacBook Pro now only has a single Firewire 800 port; Firewire 400 is now gone.
the implication to me is clear: low-end, the future is USB. If you want high end performance, there’s still Firewire. Although I wonder if we’ll see that move to eSATA or something down the road. That seems to make sense.
I’ll also note for the record that I started making sure all of my bus-powered drives had USB capability as well as firewire months ago. The writing was on the wall if you knew where to look (and where to look is the PC market, where firewire has lost out to USB).
Yes, USB 2.0 is slower. If performance is really that important, Apple’s telling you that the Macbook isn’t what you want. it is, after all, a large series of performance compromises for a hunk less money than a MacBook Pro.
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. I think this is the right move for Apple.
So, my thoughts overall?
I like the new machines. I’m amused at some of the “God, more expensive!” whines… The reality is that from a pure price/performance basis, the new Macbook has equivalent performance (including in video, where macbooks really lagged) to the macBook Pro I have that’s now about 2.5 years old; same performance, about half the cost, and we’re not even getting into the new features, like the new (nifty, I think) trackpad and the LED-backed monitor. The new Macbook pros just plain old toss my current one against the wall.
Too many of the fan geeks get so focussed on price, especially “low price”, especially “I want it for free, diamond encrusted, so I can complain about how slow it is”.
The fact is, and has been, and will be: Apple isn’t about price. It’s about VALUE. You don’t see BMW issuing cars that compete with Kia on price. But for some reason, some folks think Apple should compete with windows-PC’s on price, and are constantly surprised when they don’t.
Could Apple sell a box at $800? Sure. Would they sell a billion? Probably?
Would that $800 computer have the same margins that the $1200 ones do? Of course not. And would an $800 computer cannibalize more expensive computers? Absolutely.
So the end result of an $800 computer? Higher units, reduced margins, lower profit per computer, and a shift away from the higher margin computers. Sometimes, the “cut the profit, make it up in volume” idea makes sense, but the reality is, every time Apple’s tried it, it’s been a disaster (Performa, anyone?); they will sell every computer they can make at the existing price points; could they really scale up to 2X unit volumes to handle demand for a less expensive unit? Maybe.
Would Apple selling an $800 computer be more profitable than Apple is now? Doubtful. And it’s not about selling units (not directly), it’s about making money.
Of course, and this is something the fan geeks keep forgetting, Apple is doing BOTH: unit volumes continue to scale, market share continues to go up, and Apple is making really nice profits. If it ain’t broke…
Will I buy one of the new machines? Probably, but not right away. Other priorities; they’re nice machines, but I stopped with the “gotta haves”. Heck, I was the last person in the universe to own an iPhone, far as I can tell… But I’d much rather spend my money on upgrading the laptop than upgrading to CS4 and paying the Adobe tax (but that’s a different whine…)
If I were to buy one, would it be a Macbook or Macbook pro? I’m honestly undecided. the new Macbooks look powerful enough to keep me happy, even in Bridge and CS4 and doing all of that photo geeking. The smaller screen, I’m not so sure about. Lack of firewire is a bit inconvenient, but only a bit; I’ve been seeing USB coming for a while and setting up my stuff so I can plug things into either as they exist. I’ve yet to use the cardbus, so I don’t miss that at all. And I don’t know yet whether I’ll want the more powerful video. So it comes down to “less money” vs “bigger screen” and “faster video”. and I don’t have a good sense of how I’ll factor those when I’m ready to buy.
But yeah, I expect to buy one of these. One of these days.
As to the rumors leading up to all of this, basically, John Gruber says what I would have said, only better…
Jackass of the week honors go to Duncan Riley at Inquisitr, who a week ago launched the â€œ$800 laptop from Appleâ€ rumor. Worse than merely printing a bogus rumor, today heâ€™s pointing to the new 24-inch LED Cinema Display as proof that he was somehow right.
If you look at where the rumors came from, there are two main leakers: the asian companies doing the contract manufacturing, and the retail sites once things start hitting their inventory systems. I find it interesting that a rumor popped up (and then disappeared) that Apple was going back to in-house manufacturing; the only reason to consider that is better leak management. Stay tuned, this may be something it’s working on, and if so, the fact that the brick stuff leaked so enthusiastically and so accurately might well get Apple to think in that direction.
And the retail? That’s where the rumor geeks blew it. When pricing info started leaking (from, it seems, tech geeks at Best Buy, as far as I can tell), they saw the $899 price point and blithely went running off into the swamp yelling NETBOOK! NETBOOK! not stopping to think maybe that product wasn’t a computer… oops.
and since that was really the focus of so much of the hype of the rumormongering, even though a lot of the details on the machines and the new manufacturing process were right — you have to give much of this round of rumoring a big, fat FAIL, because that was what everyone was yelling about, and they were wrong. A fact they’ll conveniently forget to remind you on.
(me? I got the blu-ray thing right, I wasn’t convinced “brick” was the new process, but maybe something else — and I wasn’t so good there. mostly I kept my mouth shut, because I find all of this rumoring silly, because too many of these “experts” take half a fact and run off into the swamp with it, and people blindly believe them, and then blame Apple when it doesn’t happen.)
These rumor sites are like the psychics that do new year predictions — lots of froth, little substance, if they get something right, they scream from the rooftops, and all the stuff they get wrong, they hope you forget. It’s not that you shouldn’t read the sites; they have their purpose. Just don’t take them so damn seriously. (heck, it’s not just you, the morning of the announcement, a CNET editor on KGO was talking about how he was expecting a $799 macbook, and how Apple was in trouble if they didn’t. Talk about not getting it — by then, even the rumor sites had things under better control than that. But then, I’ll read AppleInsider before I read CNET…)
Now, for some of the other coverage:
Is Steve Jobs Preparing His Farewell?
Steve Jobs is leaving Apple. Not tomorrow, but probably very soon. That’s why he started to say good bye today,
Nope. Thanks for playing. Daring Fireball got it right here. Steve IS reacting to the “Without Steve, Apple is nothing” crowd by bringing forward people that will be part of the future of Apple — but this is the beginning of a long process of transition, not anything happening soon. I think there’s still so much Steve wants to accomplish, he’s just getting going!
Don’t you find it interesting that at a time when Apple’s stock price was going into the toilet (like everyone else’s), a rumour emerged about low-priced MacBooks? A rumour which analysts picked up on, and which thus protected Apple’s share price from falling any further at a vulnerable time.
And now it seems that rumour was not necessarily true, but as the whole market has gone up it doesn’t matter half as much.
So here’s the question: Who would benefit from a rumour like that being spread at that particular time? Someone started that rumour, after all…
The problem is it’s not a single-variable problem. The big players in the rumors aren’t people trying to profit from them (as in stock or investments), but i other things, like advertising/pageviews, or ego/reputation and geek cred. The rumor sites and other geeks falling over each other to out rumor each other aren’t trying to manipulate the stock as much as tehy’re trying to drive traffic or get people to pay attention to them (hello, Jason Calcanis! FAIL).
And here’s what I think is the best summary I’ve read:
There were some significant price decreases in todayâ€™s announcements, but they generally amount to reflections of the normal, continuing advance of technology, and not a decision by Apple to play in new markets. For example, the $1300 model of the MacBook now has an instant-on backlit display and a fast graphics processor – which yesterday you would have had to pay $2000 to get in the MacBook Pro line. And at the high end of the line, thereâ€™s a $2500 machine with 4GB of RAM, dual graphics chips including one with 512MB, and a 320GB hard drive – more power than you could have gotten in any Apple laptop before this.
Despite the fantasies of low-price MacBooks, it seems pretty clear that Apple knows its core audience well. Some of the statistics that came out at the event include that Apple sells more notebooks in education than Dell does (with 39% of the market), and that Mac sales have outgrown those of the industry for 14 of the last 15 quarters.