Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them. There is a difference.
But I don't think Apple is confused. I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.
Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount. Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery. Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop. Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.
We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products. Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more. I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that. They just still won't get those folks.