Apple bucking trend of declining PC prices

[AppleInsider]

Apple's capacity to maintain (and even raise) the average selling price of its personal computer systems in a market rife with yearly declines is just one of the reasons analysts at JMP Securities remain bullish the company's shares.

In a research report Friday, analyst Ingrid Ebeling noted that of the top 25 computers on Amazon.com’s best-seller list for the category of computers, Apple desktops and portables command 10 of the 25 spots, with an average selling price (ASP) of $1,482, compared with an ASP of $579 for the remaining 15.

Similarly, for fiscal year 2005, the ASP for Macs was $1,442, compared with $1,384 for fiscal 2005 in an industry characterized by declining ASPs, which fell from $1,042 to $957 over the same time frame, according to market research firm IDC.

"Although economic uncertainty in the US looms overseveral names in our sector, including Apple, we believe the overall PC industry market in 2008 will continue to be fueled by consumer demand for digital media, increased adoption of portable computers, and growth in emerging markets," Ebeling said. "The adoption of portable computers has been a contributing factor to growth, with units up 34 percent in 2007, a trend that has helped Apple given the response to the MacBook line."

However, she added that Apple’s desktop sales have also been very robust following the release of the new iMac, which drove year-over-year unit growth to 53 percent in the December quarter.

"Over the past two years, we estimate Apple’s worldwide market share has risen from 2.3 percent of 207 million units sold to 3.0 percent of 262 million sold, or from 4.7 million Macs sold in 2005 to 7.9 million Macs in 2007, representing a 2-year Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 29 percent, compared to a 12 percent CAGR for the PC industry," she wrote. "In the US, we estimate that Apple’s share has increased from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent, and that itsshare in the laptop market now exceeds 15 percent."

In respect to iPods, the analyst acknowledged recently disappointing results, but said she's still forecasting revenue growth of 17 percent and 14 percent in fiscal 2008 and 2009 based on unit growth of 5 percent and 13 percent, which assumes that the iPod touch -- with price tags of $299, $399,or $499 -- will help boost the product line’s ASP.

Over time, she expects the product should gain momentum as not just an iPod but also an Internet device. "It is considered one of the best WiFi mobile platforms and has a powerful interface to run Web applications," she said. " As Apple continues to add content to its iTunes store,such as movie rentals, consumers could be compelled to upgrade to the more expensive devices."

The JPM analyst reiterated her Market Outperform rating and $200 price target on shares of the Cupertino-based company.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[cherrypop]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple desktops and portables command 10 of the 25 spots, with an average selling price (ASP) of $1,482, compared with an ASP of $579 for the remaining 15.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Great for shareholders, but not so great for potential Switchers.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by cherrypop

Great for shareholders, but not so great for potential Switchers.

Sometimes you get what you pay for...

(Not that I don't want less expensive Macs, I just don't want cheep ones.)

[CREB]

There is a great deal of junk PCs on the market at least Apple is the not the manufacturer of any of them; if Apple turns the profit into designing and manufacturing a still better PC then more power to Apple.

[lkrupp]

Good grief, the nay-sayers have gotten cut off at the knees again. First came the news that the iPhone has increased Google searches exponentially, indicating massive popularity of the device. Then came the report that cellphone pundits can't figure out why the iPhone is so popular but, by god, they are going to try and copy it. Now comes the news that Apple can and does charge more for their hardware and sales are heading up, up, up, along with market share.

What's a "Apple needs a low end, headless desktop priced at $5.00 in order to survive" clueless expert to do these days? All their theories are crumbling before their eyes but, never fear, they'll find yet another reason to question Apple's marketing decisions. Well I'm not questioning Steve's competence these days. Are you?

[Clive At Five]

And this is good for shareholders, not so good for customers. I passionately dislike when a company strives to hard to please shareholders at the expense of their customers.

A company can survive without shareholders but cannot survive without customers.

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

Sometimes you get what you pay for...

(Not that I don't want less expensive Macs, I just don't want cheep ones.)

It's not a matter of cheap hardware. It's about good code. Hardware only operates as well as its told. In many many cases, Apple uses the same exact components as can be found in Windows PCs. They just are writing for a much smaller set of hardware, which makes it easier to have more reliable operation.

So, no, they aren't spending more on "quality" hardware, they're just designing better, programming better and taking bigger profits.

Even after all is said and done, they are taking profits of 60% in some cases on their computers. This is more than twice that of other PC manufacturers. I understand charging more for a better product, but 60% profit is pretty ridiculous. Apple should make more of an attempt to befriend their customers because sooner or later people will start to realize they're getting robbed.

If only OS X ran reliably on X86 hardware...

-Clive

[cherrypop]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

Sometimes you get what you pay for...

(Not that I don't want less expensive Macs, I just don't want cheep ones.)

I was _not_ commenting on value. You get _more_ than you pay for with a Mac. Period.

Those who know me, know that I bought my first Mac in High School (1986) and that I've never bought a PC and never will. But that puts me in the vast minority of computer users, then and now.

I originally posted simply to make the point that Apple needs to compete at the low end, and has since the very beginning. This "study" of declining PC prices is just a reminder that Apple still needs a sub-$500 Mac. I'm not alone in this opinion, and the Mac mini doesn't count as a viable remedy; I'm talking about a complete computer for $500.

[ajmas]

If you want a product where a lot of effort has been put into R&D, and the final finish, then you have you accept that there will a higher price-tag to go with it. Apple is considered a luxury product and that is part of the reason people put their money down. Build something that looks like, and feels like, cr@p and people will not want to put down the same amount of cash.

Whatever has to be said about the MacBook Air, I think its limitations will encourage people to innovate to work around its limitations. This happened for the orginal iMac, and I believe it will be the same here.

[shippster]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

. . . It's not a matter of cheap hardware. It's about good code. . . .Even after all is said and done, they are taking profits of 60% in some cases on their computers. This is more than twice that of other PC manufacturers. I understand charging more for a better product, but 60% profit is pretty ridiculous.
-Clive

You said it all, you just didn't connect your ideas the same way I do.

We love Macs first and foremost because of their code. No other PC maker is developing their OS and nearly every one of the most popular applications on that platform. So, Apple has designed a pricing structure where profits from their hardware sales can provide supplement financial support for good software design too, which no one else needs to do. In addition, they do revolutionary design.

Where do you think Apple got money to spend on developing things like the iPhone, Apple TV and iPods? They experiment with a bunch of stuff we never see. Your basic computer companies aren't nearly as into redesign and risk taking with revolutionary devices.

So, yeah, 60% is ridiculous for a company that just assembles parts, loads someone else's software and puts a sticker on it. 60% profit on a Mac if you are basing your profit numbers on hardware alone is much more acceptable.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by cherrypop

I'm not alone in this opinion, and the Mac mini doesn't count as a viable remedy; I'm talking about a complete computer for $500.

No you aren't alone. I think the fact that Apple sells a unit with a Combo Drive, 80GB HDD, and sub 2GHz processor for $600 is utterly shameful. The low-end iPod Classic has the same 80GB capacity as the MacMini! What an embarrassment! The Mini should either be $200 cheaper or upgraded to be worth a s***.

Originally Posted by ajmas

Whatever has to be said about the MacBook Air, I think its limitations will encourage people to innovate to work around its limitations. This happened for the orginal iMac, and I believe it will be the same here.

Why should people be forced to innovate on Apple's products in order to make them useable? That doesn't make sense to me. Apple's current strategy is to pull the wool over the eyes of as many people as possible and sadly it's working.

Hey, I've got an idea, maybe you could use that high-powered USB port to attach a wormhole that sinks all your spare cash straight into Apple's coffers.

-Clive

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Even after all is said and done, they are taking profits of 60% in some cases on their computers. This is more than twice that of other PC manufacturers. I understand charging more for a better product, but 60% profit is pretty ridiculous.

60%? Can you cite your sources? If it's iSuppli, then don't worry about posting that link... as iSuppli numbers are ridiculous. Apple's gross margins are usually in the 25-36% range. Now Apple's profit margins have been known to grow 60+% but not be 60%.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by shippster

So, yeah, 60% is ridiculous for a company that just assembles parts, loads someone else's software and puts a sticker on it. 60% profit on a Mac if you are basing your profit numbers on hardware alone is much more acceptable.

You make a valid point, but even if you tack on the RETAIL prices of OS X and iLife, their profits would still be extreme.

Originally Posted by Wally

60%? Can you cite your sources? If it's iSuppli, then don't worry about posting that link... as iSuppli numbers are ridiculous. Apple's gross margins are usually in the 25-36% range. Now Apple's profit margins have been known to grow 60+% but not be 60%.

The high-end MacMini's profit margins have grown to 60% (or possibly more) on the hardware alone. This is based on a survey I performed on the RETAIL prices of the exact (or sometimes better) hardware on newegg.com, so they are possibly making more than 60% on their hardware alone.

If you add in the "OEM" price of software you won't change much.

-Clive

[jwdawso]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

And this is good for shareholders, not so good for customers. I passionately dislike when a company strives to hard to please shareholders at the expense of their customers.

A company can survive without shareholders but cannot survive without customers.



It's not a matter of cheap hardware. It's about good code. Hardware only operates as well as its told. In many many cases, Apple uses the same exact components as can be found in Windows PCs. They just are writing for a much smaller set of hardware, which makes it easier to have more reliable operation.

So, no, they aren't spending more on "quality" hardware, they're just designing better, programming better and taking bigger profits.

Even after all is said and done, they are taking profits of 60% in some cases on their computers. This is more than twice that of other PC manufacturers. I understand charging more for a better product, but 60% profit is pretty ridiculous. Apple should make more of an attempt to befriend their customers because sooner or later people will start to realize they're getting robbed.

If only OS X ran reliably on X86 hardware...

-Clive

(BTW - what percentage does MS make on Windows?)

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Even after all is said and done, they are taking profits of 60% in some cases on their computers. This is more than twice that of other PC manufacturers. I understand charging more for a better product, but 60% profit is pretty ridiculous. Apple should make more of an attempt to befriend their customers because sooner or later people will start to realize they're getting robbed.

Apple spends hoards of money on R&D, money on carefully designing cases and hardware to meet very unique needs, a very large sum on talented employees, and does some really incredible hardware testing. If Apple had half the problems that plague new hardware releases from other manufacturers their very vocal fan-base would be in a complete uproar. When someone buys one of the new Gateways which has a high chance of non-functional USB ports they don't blog all over the internet about it, they suck it up, go to the store, return it, and get something else.

Apple is making a profit, yes, but there is a very good reason why their products are so amazing.

Edit: This is the difference between a company that created the iPhone, and a company which has made a late-to-market poorly designed clone of the iPhone. One is copying the innovation of another, one spent years developing and creating the product. You can see the clear difference in the final result. A person who does not want to pay for that innovation and remarkable consistency of design has plenty of other options outside Apple. There they can save money.

[NasserAE]

I built my last Windows PC back in 2002 hoping that I can get high quality parts and high-end performance for less money. Well, I ended up paying more that what I paid for my current iMac. The CPU alone was more than $1200 plus 15" LCD monitor, Wireless mouse and keyboard, and speakers totaling almost $1900. A year after that, my PC became obsolete. I switched to Mac in 2006 and I have to admit that I never regret spending $1800 on my iMac. Almost 2 years without going obsolete. Thats the beauty of Mac.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

You make a valid point, but even if you tack on the RETAIL prices of OS X and iLife, their profits would still be extreme.



The high-end MacMini's profit margins have grown to 60% (or possibly more) on the hardware alone. This is based on a survey I performed on the RETAIL prices of the exact (or sometimes better) hardware on newegg.com, so they are possibly making more than 60% on their hardware alone.

If you add in the "OEM" price of software you won't change much.

-Clive

If you don't think that you left out a few things in your build to confirm your claim, I would suggest that you quit visiting this site. Otherwise some of you most ardent fans will not be able to support you. Unless they are dumb as doorknobs, which obvious sets you apart from them.

[aaarrrgggh]

I would love for the mini to get a refresh and price drop, but they aren't too far off in their value proposition today. The fact that it is an 8-month old spec is what kills it more than anything. All of the other computers give pretty good value relative to the competition, from the bottom-end iMac to the XServe, if you count the OS upgrade as having about a $200 value for desktop and $1,000 for a server.

But, Apple stands to make more money convincing me to buy a 24" iMac from them rather than a 24" monitor from someone else and a mini from them. It's a logical business decision... to a point.

[Röntgenmann]

Although I love working on MacOSX and with Apple hardware, I have problems justifying to my boss me getting a new one.

A little more than three years ago I got the biggest Mac-laptop (after hefty negotiations). One of my arguments where that it would last one to two years longer than a PC. It has been repaired once (the LCD screen). Now, after expired warranty, there is a new error with the screen (I'm not the only one with this error, but Apple has chosen to ignore our frustrations).

With Macs at 30 to 50 percent higher prices than PCs I could feel comfortable, but here in Norway they are sold at prices between 100 and 200 percent more!

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

If you don't think that you left out a few things in your build to confirm your claim, I would suggest that you quit visiting this site. Otherwise some of you most ardent fans will not be able to support you. Unless they are dumb as doorknobs, which obvious sets you apart from them.

There's no doubt I omitted R&D and software. I'm not denying that. Neither am I denying that the quality of Macs exceed that of Windows PCs. I'm just saying that the premium, even for a "luxury item" is a bit excessive.

Would you sell a computer with an 80GB HDD, Combo Drive, and 1.8GHz CPU for $600? My 6-year old iMac has a Superdrive and 60GB HDD! Even to the sanest of minds, buy a computer with those specs at that price doesn't even make sense, even if it does have the best software and stability available.

BTW... I have fans? Pretty sure all I ever do here is argue with people who can't tollerate a mild dose of reason.

-Clive

[cherrypop]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

Apple is making a profit, yes, but there is a very good reason why their products are so amazing.
.[/i]

Agreed. But I feel that this is at the very crux of the matter. While Apple doesn't enjoy 60% margins, as mentioned by someone above, they do pull in about 20% margins on hardware, which makes them far and away a best performer in their category.

As such, I said that Apple's price points are great for shareholders but not for customers. Now the issue: there is a large contingent of us out there that have no problem paying for Macs. We understand fully the value proposition. Apple has little or no work in this category.

But there exists a vast majority of consumers that, despite all of the "studies" or head-to-head comparisons that CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that Macs are really no more expensive in the mid-range than their PC counterpart, WILL NEVER consider paying more for a COMPLETE Mac than they will for a COMPLETE low-end PC.

It's this truly mammoth number of consumers that I, and others, believe Apple continues to miss out on.

To Apple's credit, they've taken a different path to Switching since the iPod became what could be considered a mature product. At that point they, I believe, understood the "halo" effect, and just now (with the Touch and the iPhone) are realizing increased Mac sales from otherwise-PC buyers.

This increased Mac customer base is good, just not as good as it might otherwise be with a complete Mac available through Apple Retail Stores, etc for $500.

If you're not convinced, and you think it's impossible for Apple to sell a $500 Mac due to all of the incredible things Apple puts into creating a Mac that PC makers don't, ask yourself why Apple discontinues Macs with older technology rather than ride that configuration down to the point where it competes with low-end PCs. Take the eMac for example. Sure, CRTs suck, but I can name a few PC users that have no problem with CRTs that might jump at a $400 20-inch eMac.

The reason for this, IMO, is that Apple has LONG held price points to maintain, and sub $1k machines kills this strategy. Just look at Apple's price points over the years and you'll see the following trend +/-:

Consumer laptops: $1100-1500 on average.
Consumer desktops: $1200-1500 on average.

Pro laptops: $2500-3500 on average.
Pro desktops: $2500-3500 on average.

There are examples in each category the drop below and exceed these levels, but off hand I would argue that these price points have been consistently maintained for at least 20 years.

Circling back to the original argument, Apple continues to buck the plummeting PC price trend as outlined in the original article. It's working for them. No argument there. But I really have a hard time reconciling with the fact that Apple could not sell more Macs with a Mac that directly compete with low-end $500-600 PCs.

End of rant, and time to do real work ;-)

[penchanted]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

A company can survive without shareholders but cannot survive without customers.

This is almost comical in light of current events. Yahoo is a company with no shortage of customers - #1 portal, #1 in email, essentially tied for #1 in IM, #2 in search and advertising and also a huge player in social networks (Flickr and del.icio.us) and yet its very existence as a separate company is threatened because its shareholders are unhappy.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Röntgenmann

Although I love working on MacOSX and with Apple hardware, I have problems justifying to my boss me getting a new one.

A little more than three years ago I got the biggest MAC-laptop (after hefty negotiations). One of my arguments where that it would last one to two years longer than a PC. It has been repaired once (the LCD screen). Now, after expired warranty, there is a new error with the screen (I'm not the only one with this error, but Apple has chosen to ignore our frustrations).

With Macs at 30 to 50 percent higher prices than PCs I could feel comfortable, but here in Norway they are sold at prices between 100 and 200 percent more!

Perhaps a vacation to New Jersey (no tax) is in order. Better yet, have your boss come instead. Kill three birds with one stone.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by Röntgenmann

With Macs at 30 to 50 percent higher prices than PCs I could feel comfortable, but here in Norway they are sold at prices between 100 and 200 percent more!

Why does Apple sell at prices between 100 and 200 percent more in Norway?

Are there added costs that Apple has to pay for selling in Norway, required by Norway, that Apple passes along to the consumer? Is that before any taxes are applied? If not and Apple is just being super greedy, are there not laws in Norway regarding price gouging?

[hmurchison]

Apple sells premium product.

Regardless of whether you like the pay the price or not companies that thrive on premium products have to deliver adequate performance and enough style and class to warrant the premium.

Let's face it ..if Vista wasn't a boring as hell over candified OS with a plethora of annoyances Apple wouldn't exist.

If PC manufacturers differentiated themselves by deliver more than ubuquitious rectangular boxes with cheap components Apple wouldn't exist.

Don't believe the hype if someone tells you Apple doesn't pay more for their hardware.

When Macbooks have powered 6 and 9 pin Firewire and the rest of the PC industry cheaps out with nonpowered 4 pin you see the difference.

When Apple standardizes on DVI ports while the kitsch PC industry standardizes on silly card readers you see the difference.

When Apple's keyboards are backlight or they deliver buttons that don't buckle or pop off as easy. You see the difference.

When you look at a Mac Pro's internals and can't see nary a cable and drives sleds that work, you see the difference.

When you see more expensive slot loaders (but arguably safer) optical drives in laptops you see the difference.


I've been supporting Apple for over a decade. No one is going to sit here and tell me Apple doesn't spend more on their componentry without generating a look of incredulity or at least a laugh.

I've built PCs and they don't look like Macs do for the most part.

[lantzn]

Certain people are willing to pay for a better product. Macs happen to be such a beast. This is regardless if it is the software or hardware. If we are paying for better programming then so be it, end of story. Personally I also prefer the way Apple designs their hardware. The internal components are not all there is to that equation.

If you don't like it, then stay with your Windows OS.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by cherrypop

Pro desktops: $2500-3500 on average.

No no no. In the G3 & G4 days, the PowerMac was in the $1700 - $2500 range, and it only got that high with outrageous BTOs.

The price for Apple's pro desktop has been steadily rising, and is most certainly not a set price-point or even range.

As for the 60% margins, that is based on today's margins, not margins at the time of release. This can be verified yourself by building a computer using identical components as those in the high-end MacMini at RETAIL PRICES (not bulk, like Apple orders) for around $500 while Apple sells it for $800.

Originally Posted by penchanted

This is almost comical in light of current events. Yahoo is a company with no shortage of customers - #1 portal, #1 in email, essentially tied for #1 in IM, #2 in search and advertising and also a huge player in social networks (Flickr and del.icio.us) and yet its very existence as a separate company is threatened because its shareholders are unhappy.

There are alawys exceptions, and of course it's difficult to go back to operating without shareholders once you've taken them on, but there are companies who do so. And there are plenty of successfull companies who operate without shareholders... Cargil, Toys 'R' Us, C&S, Menards... Apple could start buying back their shares and wouldn't have to be anyone's bitch.

-Clive

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

And this is good for shareholders, not so good for customers. I passionately dislike when a company strives to hard to please shareholders at the expense of their customers.

You realize that an increase in average selling price can be done in one of TWO ways:

1. Raising prices. (Apple has not done this--pricing info is no secret. In fact they have lowered some prices relative to specs--look at the current iMac compared to the previous gen. One of their best selling lines.)

2. Customers opting more often for higher-end systems compared to low-end systems.

If people are CHOOSING more high-end machines, it's not at their "expense." Maybe more people are going for the 24" iMac than last year. Maybe more people are getting Mac Pros. Maybe people are skipping the Mac Mini and getting Apple TVs. Who knows? What we don't know is that Apple is raising prices and screwing people.

A higher average selling price doesn't necesarily say ANYTHING about the price of a Mac vs. the price of a PC with similar specs. Instead, it could be telling us that people buy bottom-end PCs more than they buy bottom-end Macs. Which makes sense, since really Apple offers no stripped-down bottom-end models at all. They start at the low mid-range in features--and are priced fairly accordingly. Look at ALL the specs and compare a Mac to a PC (note I mentioned ALL, so you may have to add a few things to both models unless you can find a close match). The Mac is often cheaper than a Dell or HP or Sony. Sometimes by a lot. But basically in the same ballpark as name-brand (not Acers with cheap parts) PCs.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

There's no doubt I omitted R&D and software. I'm not denying that. Neither am I denying that the quality of Macs exceed that of Windows PCs. I'm just saying that the premium, even for a "luxury item" is a bit excessive.

Would you sell a computer with an 80GB HDD, Combo Drive, and 1.8GHz CPU for $600? My 6-year old iMac has a Superdrive and 60GB HDD! Even to the sanest of minds, buy a computer with those specs at that price doesn't even make sense, even if it does have the best software and stability available.-Clive

Perhaps and here are some old pics (http://mini-itx.com/viewer.asp?i=01&j=0421 that might help you identify some of the missing parts, but heck, why not go for it. Don't forget the case, power cord, labor, packaging, transportation (doubt that you would ever need it though), advertising, liability insurance, product support, software (better include some, otherwise you may never get an order especially if you compare it to a Mac).

Oh. forget R&D. I think that it would be a waste of money on your part.

Hmmm. Looks so easy. Wonder why somebody hasn't done it before?

[Bregalad]

I find it rather amazing that Apple has managed to increase their ASP in the last two years. While that looks good for shareholders there is a serious risk lurking just under the surface: the hackintosh.

Look at how successful the cracking community has been getting and keeping the iPhone unlocked. Estimates say 20-25% of all iPhones are unlocked.

If the same level of effort was made to make it easy for Joe Consumer to run Leopard on his $500 PC, Apple would have a huge problem on its hands. Imagine if 25% of Mac customers replaced their machines with Acer hardware running Leopard.

Like the iTunes store works to reduce file sharing by making it easy to find and buy music online, Apple needs to make Macs affordable enough that most customers don't go looking for cheaper alternatives.

Prescription:

1) continue to innovate with cooling systems to allow the MacBook Pro to carry top of the line components in an even lighter package.

2) having confirmed the MacBook Pro as a true high-end notebook at a premium price, introduce a 15" MacBook to grab a chunk of the market that currently sees nothing for them in the Mac lineup. There's no need to make this unit ultra light because the competition is often a full pound (or more) heavier than a Mac.

3) accept that the desktop market still exists and that very successful hackintosh units already exist in this space. accept that most consumer (as opposed to corporate) desktop buyers play games. Respond with a small tower packing commodity desktop components and PCI express video.

4) use the aforementioned small tower, a more aggressively priced entry-level iMac and the AppleTV to completely replace the Mac Mini.

Net result: Apple continues to sell 3 desktop models and expands selection in the growing notebook and home electronics markets.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

No no no. In the G3 & G4 days, the PowerMac was in the $1700 - $2500 range, and it only got that high with outrageous BTOs.

The price for Apple's pro desktop has been steadily rising, and is most certainly not a set price-point or even range.

Yup. In fact, didn't Apple used to sell G4 towers for $1,499? And now the Mac Pro is $2,799(!)... wow.

.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Don't believe the hype if someone tells you Apple doesn't pay more for their hardware.

There are certain places where Apple uses better hardware, but as for the guts of the machine, it's all the same.

I too have been a Apple support for well-over 10 years, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't have flaws in my eyes. And I've also home-built PCs. Sure, they're nothing like Macs but in my experience that's because you don't get the benefits of OS X, not because I had to put my CD in a tray instead of slot-loading it, because the insides had wires, or because I couldn't see the keys in a dark room.

Sure the extra touches are nice, but surely not necessities (save for the DVI port). When I slot-load a CD into my iMac, I don't say, "ahh, I'm using a Mac. How much of a pain in the ass would it be if I had to put this in a tray?"

-Clive

[lantzn]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

...all I ever do here is argue with people....

-Clive

Maybe you should consider moving on, why waste your life arguing?

[lantzn]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Yup. In fact, didn't Apple used to sell G4 towers for $1,499? And now the Mac Pro is $2,799(!)... wow.

.

Yep a lot of us have been missing that $1500 entry level pro tower.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Perhaps and here are some old pics (http://mini-itx.com/viewer.asp?i=01&j=0421) that might help you identify some of the missing parts, but heck, why not go for it. Don't forget the case, power cord, labor[................................]

I didn't forget the motherboard. It can't really be considered a Mini-ITX as it has a much more limited set of hardware features than the Mini-ITX standard and AGAIN, only has to work with a small subset of hardware. And as for the case and power cord and all the other things you mentioned, those must be considered in the products I mentioned as well, so the only thing I'm missing is assembly.

Oh, yeah, and I already mentioned R&D a few posts up.

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Yup. In fact, didn't Apple used to sell G4 towers for $1,499? And now the Mac Pro is $2,799(!)... wow. .

They did but it was a former top-spec G4 which then became an entry-level model when new hardware came out.

Originally Posted by lantzn

Maybe you should consider moving on, why waste your life arguing?

Maybe you should read and quote my entire sentence.

-Clive

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

They did but it was a former top-spec G4 which then became an entry-level model when new hardware came out.

Maybe, but it didn't seem like a transitional or temporary thing... I seem to remember Apple selling towers at the $1,499 price point for quite a long time, i.e. a few years.

In fact, I believe they even had a $1,299 tower out for awhile, but that was a transitional/temporary thing.


.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

There are certain places where Apple uses better hardware, but as for the guts of the machine, it's all the same.

Sure the extra touches are nice, but surely not necessities (save for the DVI port). When I slot-load a CD into my iMac, I don't say, "ahh, I'm using a Mac. How much of a pain in the ass would it be if I had to put this in a tray?"

-Clive

Computers are hardly necessities but if I'm going to compute at home I want something a bit better than the ubiquitious Wintel fare I have to work on.

My Honda gets me from A to B but I can't help but salivate at the style and panache than an Audi A6 would deliver.

I'm in no no hurry for Audi to deliver Honda quality.

[Royboy]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Maybe, but it didn't seem like a transitional or temporary thing... I seem to remember Apple selling towers at the $1,499 price point for quite a long time, i.e. a few years.

In fact, I believe they even had a $1,299 tower out for awhile, but that was a transitional/temporary thing.


.

I think the end of the $1499 Mac tower was the Mac G4 in Jan. of 2003 for $1499. Then in the Summer of 2003 came the G5 which jumped the low end up to $1999. Then came the Mac Pro in mid 2006 for $2499. The cheapest now is the Mac Pro single quad for $2299.

The $1499 days are gone. The choice is, if you want a truly upgradeable (not talking about processor) tower and a separate monitor, then you have have a choice of a Mac Pro with OS X or a PC made by a good number of other computer makers and run the system you want, but not OS X.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by Royboy

I think the end of the $1499 Mac tower was the Mac G4 in Jan. of 2003 for $1499. Then in the Summer of 2003 came the G5 which jumped the low end up to $1999. Then came the Mac Pro in mid 2006 for $2499. The cheapest now is the Mac Pro single quad for $2299.

The $1499 days are gone.

Meh. Things are only gone until they aren't, anymore.


.

[emoney35]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I built my last Windows PC back in 2002 hoping that I can get high quality parts and high-end performance for less money. Well, I ended up paying more that what I paid for my current iMac. The CPU alone was more than $1200 plus 15" LCD monitor, Wireless mouse and keyboard, and speakers totaling almost $1900. A year after that, my PC became obsolete. I switched to Mac in 2006 and I have to admit that I never regret spending $1800 on my iMac. Almost 2 years without going obsolete. Thats the beauty of Mac.

Don't get me wrong, I love Apple products, and my next computer will be a Mac, but I had the exact opposite experience.
Almost 2.5 years ago I built my own computer and spent about $900 - $1,000 bucks and it's STILL faster than probably 50% of new computers on the market. I can't wait for mine to become "obsolete" so I can finally get a Mac!

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Computers are hardly necessities but if I'm going to compute at home I want something a bit better than the ubiquitious Wintel fare I have to work on.

My Honda gets me from A to B but I can't help but salivate at the style and panache than an Audi A6 would deliver.

I'm in no no hurry for Audi to deliver Honda quality.

It's not 1980. Computers ARE a necessity, I might even suggest as much of a necessity as a car. Al Gore was into something when he invented the internet because, surprize, e-mail is the new telephone, and Alexander Graham Bell is very unhappy about it. I know I'm a youngster, but I don't know a single person without e-mail. Hell, even my 89-year-old grandfather checks his e-mail regularly.

This is all besides the point.

This is about your Honda. Yes, we'd all love to replace our "Hondas" with "Audis" (my "Honda" is a hail-damaged 1999 Mercury Mystique and my "Audi" is an Opel GT (or it's US counterpart, the Saturn Sky Redline)) and of course we'd love to buy our "Audis" at the price of a Honda..........

.... but who said ANYTHING about quality