or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple needs G5 says CEO of Europe's Largest Mac dealer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple needs G5 says CEO of Europe's Largest Mac dealer - Page 3

post #81 of 156
1) Individuals pay for the OS. Every point-update has been $129 so far. Even if the OS came with your Mac, you more than pay for that if you upgrade for $129 every year.

The truth is this:

The market has priced computers 15 to 50 percent LOWER than Apple's prices.

Part of that price is loss-leading by Dell, etc (They sell some products at an "accounting" loss to hold or increase marketshare).

The long-term result of the loss-leading is bankruptcy and destruction of the competition. Think Compaq, who got eaten by HP. At some time, Dell will decide it has enough of the market to be invulnerable to PC competition. Dell will either achieve this goal, collapse financially, or scale back on the losses. Right now, Dell appears to be doing exactly what they want, when they want.

So, if the artificially-low prices disappeared, where would PC prices be? The answer probably lies within the pricing structure of Apple's MOST COMPETITVE Model: the iBook.

I am ignoring the G3 iMac, since it is so old.

The iBook usually compares very well with comparable PC laptops. I think it is about 10-15 percent overpriced (due to limited standard RAM, Graphics, mostly). In some cases, such as the $1299 model, it is only a few percentage points high.

Every other model is priced too high (yes, even the PowerBook).

Relatively speaking, then, the willingingness of Switchers to switch is, as someone else said, related to how much they "hate Windows." What's it worth to kick out MS? Apparently not $300 a unit. How about $100? I'm sure it depends on how terrible your experiences with Windows are.

There are very FEW points that, marketing-wise, push the price of Macs up. There are many market points that push the price down (value perception, compatibility, service, learning curve, the urban, effete image of Macs v. the strictly business image of Windows PCs and more).

A really cool-looking computer will sell better, but if that's your only advantage - take the money and run.

Apple, LOWER YOUR MARGINS to 20% and reward your loyal buyers while you gain new users!

".... but the beat goes on
da-da-dum, da-dum-da-dum, dum-da-da."
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #82 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by blabla:
<strong>
And while Dell dont do much R&D ( well.. actually they do), Intel is still putting a lot of R&D effort in their chip design. And Microsoft is putting a lot of R&D into Windows OS. In the end, a PC got this R&D baked into the price.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just for perspective, it's worth checking out the recent SEC filings for DELL and AAPL. According to Apple's 10-K, their R&D expenditures have been 8% of net sales for the past two years. By contrast, Dell's numbers for last year were around 1.3%. In absolute terms, the numbers are almost identical, since Dell's net sales are about six times Apple's. And of course, Dell has the huge advantage that they don't have to pay for OS development out of that total.

Conclusion: The economics are stacked against Apple; Macs are always going to cost more.
post #83 of 156
[[[Part of that price is loss-leading by Dell, etc (They sell some products at an "accounting" loss to hold or increase market share). ]]]

The point is that Windows XP and the high GHz. processors aren't selling that well at *any* significant rate. What's worse, I expect this situation to continue for the consumer PC market. Most people already have more computer than they need. Let's just say that by some fate, all the PC OEMs sell a s*hit load of 3+ GHz. PCs in 2003.. More than they ever expected... What are they going to sell that will be compelling in 2004, 2005 or even 2006?? The vast majority of people won't be needing another faster machine EVERY 2 or 3 years, so it appears that it looks worse as time goes on... The question is, what will PC OEMs do to differentiate their systems in order to keep selling them at a reasonable rate while still making a significant profit? Not only that, what sets these cookie-cutter Wintelon boxes apart from each other? What differentiates them other than the name of the Windows repackager that's taped onto the side of the case? I'm betting Apple realized this long ago. The PC sector is in a shambles thanks to Dell's game and it's a good thing that Apple chose to take another rout. After all is said and done, what will compel people to buy new PCs as often as the OEMs would like them to?

[[[Right now, Dell appears to be doing exactly what they want, when they want.]]]

Key word being "appears". Assumption is the mother of all... *-ups\t
\t
[[[I'm sure it depends on how terrible your experiences with Windows are.]]]

That kinda reminds me of the story of the puppy that was beaten every day by its owner ... one day the owner stopped beating it and the puppy felt unloved... The point is that most Windows people have become used to the problems. M$ has done a fine job of intimidating most users; especially when a problem arises. It's amazing what they put up with and never think anything of it. They've been conditioned.

--
Ed M.
post #84 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>If that is representative of the overall market, and if the other two "serious customers" are leaving your store with Macs, then Apple's market share is set to quintuple. I'm sure Apple would be delighted to hear that they had a 20% share.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It isn't represenative of the entire market, it is represenative of those who were seriously looking at buying a Mac

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I've heard it every time I've suggested a Mac. I doubt the people who are afraid of incompatibility even look at one.

As far as lowering prices, Steve himself has gone on record saying that he'd sell iMacs for $199 if he could. If you can figure out a way for Apple to sell cheaper Macs that a) are still Macs (not machines that are so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs only by their incompatibility), and b) will not cause Apple to lose their shirts, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, that 8/8 is made up of people who had already decided they want to buy a Mac, not PC users picked at random

As for Steve, he says lots of things, he was being badgered by an esspecially bitchy analyst who was eating him and the rest of the panel alive, what did you think he was going to say?

And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #85 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bullcrap.
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #86 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>... low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huh...? Could you please elaborate on that.
Feature-crippled Mac's? In what way?
post #87 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Are Apple prices in Europe still mind-bogglingly high? Part of the blame for that goes to the steep VATs imposed by the countries themselves, and there's not much Apple can do about that, but still...

Unfortunately, Steve can't just put a G5 in a PowerMac, so it's not a matter of listening to customers. He knows full well what sort of bind they're in, which is why Apple stopped bake-offs and started bundling all kinds of goodies with PowerMacs. They're giving their customers two chips clocked 25% higher than their own manufacturer acknowledges, with the fastest standard RAM available on the market, and that's the best they can do for now. Steve will just have to grin and bear it until the next CPU starts rolling off the lines. That will happen when it happens, and not sooner.

On the bright side, at least we know there's a knockout PowerPC on the horizon, and we know when it's coming. Sure beats reading about the 7500 in the Register.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. (Of course Apple hasn't even acknowledged that the PPC 970 is their next gen CPU, so in a way all of this is speculation. But we'll give them a pass here, and say it is.) And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive. Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.
post #88 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>

I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #89 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Ptrash:
<strong>

You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Piece of cake for Jobs. In fact I am willing to make a several thousand dollar bet that he can do much in '03. Lest we forgat that when Jobs came in he added the iMac and began a new course for the company that none thought was possible. In fact it is common knowledge that every other company that could have been interested in Apple have pretty much followed that thought that only Apple could figure out their problems. When Jobs came in he was in a corner, now he is not. Given the economy, WallStreet meltdown, processor choices, and the fact that we are switching from OS9 to OSX, 2002 wasn't a bad year at all. I believe that durig the last conference call it was mentioned that 10% of Mac users are using OSX. 30% and 60% are the numbers to watch for here according to MS. 30% == Mindshare, all apps should be running the new OS by then and be on schedule to really use the new features. This should happen in 2003. When 60% are using the new OS, folks will start asking where is that next rabbit!
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #90 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

Bullcrap.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quite a stunning linguist.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #91 of 156
[quote]I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.<hr></blockquote>
Problem is with the economy not recovering, consumers are especially price conscious these days, and Apple has to begin to realize that. Its not enough to be cool, or has to have decent specs--people are looking for a bargains cause thats all they can afford--even existing Mac heads can blow the farm on something that just measures up, if you begin to include all the other expenses of OSX migration (new software, new peripherals).
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #92 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

Quite a stunning linguist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but I didn't have to outline the finer inaccuracies in such a false assertion.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #93 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I hate to tell you this, but ethernet and the GeForce 4MX isn't anything out of the ordinary and definately isn't more than necessary.
post #94 of 156
I knew that if I followed this thread long enough I would hear some intelligent responses. Someone said something to the effect that the ideal price (I refuse to say "price-point") is a guess. An educated one, yes. Even the most arrogant poster here does not know this optimum price. Let me just say 3 things.
1. Mercedes Benz seemed to respond with roughly competitive prices to the Lexus and Infiniti threat while maintaining quality and image. BMW too. BMW even put in cup holders eventually. A humble, yet intelligent move.
I think that Apple will have to, to some extent, respond to the falling PC prices.
2. Market share. Its scaring me. Might not trimming a bit of $ on the high-end Power Mac prices pay off by keeping current Mac owners from switching? The pro market is where I see the worst price/performance payoff.

Maybe.
post #95 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Ptrash:
<strong>You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He does, guaranteed, since Apple can go every single quarter from now till then with zero revenue and survive. Remember that great big pile of cash they're sitting on? It would hurt them, badly, but they could do it. They built the cash reserve up before, they can rebuild it if necessary.

My point, however, wasn't that Jobs or anyone else has any tricks to tide anyone over. My point was that regardless of any other factors, the 970 will be done when it's done, and the machines built around it will be done when they're done, and the day they're done will not significantly change in response to customer clamoring, nor in response to the number of tricks Steve has up his sleeve. There is nothing for Apple to do but make the best of what it has to work with. They might do very well, they might do poorly. It's a short enough amount of time (two quarters) that they'll weather it regardless, so it's not especially relevant.

[quote]<strong>And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, we know that the P4 will get a 20% clock speed boost for the year, period, because Intel has said so. They're going to focus on reengineering the processor to consume a sane amount of power (again, they've said so). We know AMD has run into a wall with the Athlon, and we know the Opteron is delayed until about the time the 970 will come out. I'm not sure about the new Athlon variant coming out. The Itanic, well, is the Itanic.

So, in fact, the PC processor market will be stagnant, certainly relative to the previous two years. You have to understand that the massive speed increase was not in Intel's best interest. They prefer to bump MHz up gradually and soak a design for all its worth, and AMD forced them to tap out the P3 and push the P4 really hard, really fast. In that respect it didn't really help AMD either, except to cement their reputation as a credible manufacturer of high-end processors - but they had to take a bath in red ink to do it. Now both contestants are pausing for breath just as AIM is getting a second wind (so to speak). If Apple hews to an all-dual strategy, I think they'll have a convincing answer to the x86 CPUs next fall.

[quote]<strong>Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In many, many ways it did. They just took advantage of that to make it do a lot more work under the covers than OS 9 could ever dream of doing. In some of those ways (the GUI, as an obvious instance), there was a slowdown. Especially on older hardware and/or hardware with less than 512MB RAM. On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.

[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #96 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

Bullcrap.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tell that to the delighted customers of the suicidal eMacs and G4 towers
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #97 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Your comparing the $2000 17" iMac to entry level $500-$750 PC?

That is more than a little convoluted

Anyway, you can get a PC that will walk all over the 17" iMac for must less than $2000, not to mention the Geforce 4mx is the absolute rock bottom graphics card in the PC world and 100T ethernet has been standard for going on 4 or 5 years now.
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #98 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>

Tell that to the delighted customers of the suicidal eMacs and G4 towers</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.

I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #99 of 156
just a general observation on debate on Mac pricing&specs.

most people seem to forget that Apple does not aim for 50% market share. they are out to harvest just another 5%, and they are not intending to give away profit margins to do so, and why should they? do not forget that Apple adresses the digital lifestyle, they're not a mere hardware wendor. this is their genius; hardware has a price but lifestyle hasn't.

we should try to better identify who the next 5% Apple goes for really are. studies allready shows that the average Apple user has high income and good education compared to general population.
post #100 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.

I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have to be kidding me, the iMac G3 isn't good for much of anything, except maybe a doorstop

the 'raster shift' isn't an alledged problem, and the Blue G3 and G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #101 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>

....On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.

[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Definitely, OS X has been a big plus in multi-processing.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #102 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>

Your comparing the $2000 17" iMac to entry level $500-$750 PC?

That is more than a little convoluted

Anyway, you can get a PC that will walk all over the 17" iMac for must less than $2000, not to mention the Geforce 4mx is the absolute rock bottom graphics card in the PC world and 100T ethernet has been standard for going on 4 or 5 years now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let's see it, and I was not comparing a $2000 computer to a $500 - $750. Since all of these specs are so common place it should be easy to do.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #103 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

Let's see it, and I was not comparing a $2000 computer to a $500 - $750. Since all of these specs are so common place it should be easy to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Stag -

Without a doubt you can come up with a configuration that is less expensive than the iMac 17". Please do, since this will give us some numbers on the Apple premium.

Also, look at my post on the previous page concerning margins - give us your take. Again, this will help us quantify premiums, over-priced, etc.

BTW - did anybody else notice that Airport's are 2-3 weeks, and that iPod 5GB, PowerBook's and XServe's are 3-5 days+? No change yet on iMac's and eMac's...

[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: jwdawso ]</p>
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #104 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The iMac G3 is horrible.
post #105 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

The iMac G3 is horrible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have an iMac G3/DVSE - 400mhz - and I'm amazed at how well it works with Jaguar.

I don't know if there is a market for the current iMac G3, but it would be interesting to see the sales figures if Apple could sell it for $499 with a DVD-ROM (instead of CD-ROM).
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #106 of 156
what about using some expensive PC equipment as comparison for a change? why do we always presume that average PC-joe is so smart as to always find the best deal?

well, to be mean, if they were so god damnd smart they should have got a mac in the first place, shouln't they..?

i know guy's that's got ripped off bying their PC.... don't you?
post #107 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong> The time for Apple to move for more market share aggressively, is when they have a killer product that can be priced more competitively. Can anyone say IBM 970?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Youre spot on.
And I believe theyll do just that, when the timing is right.
m.

- Where there's a will, there's a way.
Reply
m.

- Where there's a will, there's a way.
Reply
post #108 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by aa:
<strong>what about using some expensive PC equipment as comparison for a change? </strong><hr></blockquote>

That is a damn good idea, lets do that!

From Apple for $3548 you get the following,

Summary
Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
120GB Ultra ATA drive
Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
ATI Radeon 9000

From DELL for $3013 you get the following,

Dell Precision Workstation 650:

- Dual 2.40Ghz Intel XEON Processors
- 512MB Of RDRAM Memory
- 120GB Ultra ATA Drive
- 4x DVD-R Drive
- ATI FireGL E1
- 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor


For LESS money than the high end G4 that is absolutly brutalized by a single 2.4ghz Pentium 4 you can get a Dell workstation with DUAL Intel XEON processors that burtalize the Pentium 4 in addition to a professional graphics card.

There is absolutly zero basis for comparison between the 1.25ghz G4 and the Dell Xeon workstation,
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #109 of 156
"http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm"

...and the winnaaahh is..?

Ouch. That sounds like a beating for the 'power'Mac, Bob.

Well, Todd, the 'power'Mac is several hundred smackers more than the Dell...you get what you pay for...

Uh?

Lemon Bon Bon

Lady Diana...Prince Charles...Winston Churchill...Margaret Thatcher...Steve Jobs...your 'power'Mac took one hell of a beating...
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #110 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>

Stag -

Without a doubt you can come up with a configuration that is less expensive than the iMac 17". Please do, since this will give us some numbers on the Apple premium.

Also, look at my post on the previous page concerning margins - give us your take. Again, this will help us quantify premiums, over-priced, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry about that, I missed that. I will have a look at that later this evening

As for the computer,

Here is another Dell, I really hate flogging Dell's, but they are most popular and the benchmark for comparison,

From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00

1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive

Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #111 of 156
Yeah and you also get WindBlows XP, oh boy.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #112 of 156
You would be suprised how many Mac people actually like Windows XP more than Mac OS X
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #113 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>

From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00

1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive

Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I went to Dell, and the total was $1367 - but that was with a DVD+R - I didn't see a DVD-R. But I'm not good at configuring at Dell's web site!


So the iMac is $600-800 more. If we use a 30% gross margin, then the iMac cost is $1400, which is more than the Dell to begin with! :eek:

Any idea what Dell's margin is?

If the Apple margin was lowered to 10%, then the iMac would sell for about $1550.

Stag - What would your consumer customers do if presented with the Dell at $1250 versus the iMac at $1550? Would they pay the $300 premium? Would there be such a stampede that Apple would sell 2-3 times as many?

As for me, there is no price that I would buy a WinTel at - even for free
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #114 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>

I have an iMac G3/DVSE - 400mhz - and I'm amazed at how well it works with Jaguar.

I don't know if there is a market for the current iMac G3, but it would be interesting to see the sales figures if Apple could sell it for $499 with a DVD-ROM (instead of CD-ROM).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah, I'm sure yours works fine. What I meant is that the current G3 iMacs suck at the price and cheaper PCs are better in a lot of ways.
post #115 of 156
I submited this to soon, gimme a minute

[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</p>
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #116 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by jwdawso:
<strong>

I went to Dell, and the total was $1367 - but that was with a DVD+R - I didn't see a DVD-R. But I'm not good at configuring at Dell's web site!


So the iMac is $600-800 more. If we use a 30% gross margin, then the iMac cost is $1400, which is more than the Dell to begin with! :eek:

Any idea what Dell's margin is?

If the Apple margin was lowered to 10%, then the iMac would sell for about $1550.

Stag - What would your consumer customers do if presented with the Dell at $1250 versus the iMac at $1550? Would they pay the $300 premium? Would there be such a stampede that Apple would sell 2-3 times as many?

As for me, there is no price that I would buy a WinTel at - even for free </strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem remains, you are calculating an artificially low margin into the equation, the overall gross margin would be much greater were the sales of Apples highest margin products not so poor.
Because sales of lower margin items such as the iBook and eMac are very strong compared to sales of the high margin Power Macintosh G4 and flat panel iMac that are abysmal the higher margins on the big ticket items that aren't selling are not factored into the overall margin.

It doesn't cost Apple $700 more to make the 17" iMac than it does to make the 15" iMac, there is a much higher margin on the 17" iMac than there is in the 15" iMac

As for the question of lowering the price to $1549, I think if Apple were to get the 17" iMac above the psychological 1 Ghz high watermark I think that would be adaquate for that particular model, however Apple would have to make the same sacracife on the lower end LCD iMac to see double the sales.

But that has to be dynamic, they can't leave the same model standing out in the wind all year long while PC's move ahead in performance and fall in price.

However, that also raises the issue that the LCD iMac really isn't the appropriate player for this market.
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #117 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>

Sorry about that, I missed that. I will have a look at that later this evening

As for the computer,

Here is another Dell, I really hate flogging Dell's, but they are most popular and the benchmark for comparison,

From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00

1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive

Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good work, looks like you should buy one.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #118 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

Good work, looks like you should buy one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why would he buy one? He's stated before that he hates Dells and he sells PCs and Macs so why would he get a Dell?
post #119 of 156
I sell Apple and Compaq (well HP), I hate Dell as much as anyone else here does, they are just a good benchmark
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
Stagflation
stag·fla·tion
Sluggish performance growth coupled with a high or rising prices
Reply
post #120 of 156
[quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:
<strong>

. . . G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hate to say it, but I have to support you on this one. The only two Mac users I know both had motherboard replacements on their G4s. One is a Quicksilver and the other a new dual 1 GHz G4. These are the only Mac users left among those I know. The others have all have a new Windows PC now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple needs G5 says CEO of Europe's Largest Mac dealer