Better Value Macs - Page 3

A lot of misunderstanding about who is the customer. Many valid issues brought up apply to a particular market, but not all markets. What interests or excites one group or people means little or nothing to another. A manager who simply needs network computers isn't going to value the same features as someone wanting to make home movies or work with digital photography.

Also, Apple does not need to go head to head with Dell on price. They cannot. But when a manager gets fed up with something about good old MS, Apple's prices need to be close enough to justify purchasing Macs. The difference needs to be small enough so the pain of switching is less than the pain of continuing with a Windows network.

Also, there is misunderstanding of the Mac I proposed. I suggested an optional monitor that could be somehow attached to the top of this Mac. This idea was a minor point, just frosting on the cake for someone who likes the AIO. The Mac might have a standard video connector. The optional special monitor would include a short cable (just long enough) that would reduce cable clutter. The monitor would have to be designed for attaching to the top of the Mac. It would be a way Apple could entice customers to spend more on the whole purchase if the end result was cool enough. If not, scrap the idea.

When my retired neighbor was shopping for a computer, he wanted to know the cheapest Mac he could buy, which was a $799 eMac. He discovered that Windows PCs had much lower entry level prices, and he never consider the Mac again. He ended up buying a Dell. Yesterday, I asked what he paid. Well it started out much lower, but by the time the order was finished he paid about $700. This represents a typical consumer buying scenario. Attracted by initial low price, they often end up paying more. Because Apple didn''t have a low entry point, they were never even considered. So a low price model is important for consumer behavior as well as for business and classrooms.

If Apple had a $499 entry point, without monitor, my neighbor would have kept them in the running as he weighed the differences. He may have bought a Mac too. I certainly would have kept encouraging him in that direction. Few consumers would buy a $499 entry Mac, however. Sure there are those who know how to work the system and they upgrade selectively afterward, but the majority do not. A typical consumer would see the benefit of paying an extra $149 for the high end model if it provides a software bundle (including iLife), more RAM, FireWire (for which Dell charges $50), a modem and possibly a couple extra USB ports.

If Apple can get a much cheaper G4, when IBM starts making the Mojave chip, I think Apple can achieve the $499 point with reasonable profit and without sacrificing their standards of reliability and quality. Remember, most buyers will pay more, if only to add more RAM, get a larger hard drive or upgrade the optical drive beyond a CD-ROM.

I agree.

I believe the processor is a key element in achieving better value Macs. I'm very pleased with what is happening with the IBM 970 and successors. The prices are so good, if we can believe reports, that people are suggesting Apple use it in all Macs. Hopefully, IBM can keep these prices below similar performing chips from Intel. If so, Apple could be more price competitive with the Power Macs, despite Apple's other cost disadvantages.

At the low end, however, these high performance chips are not a good choice. They will always cost more than a chip designed with low cost as one of the primary goals. For the 970 and 970FX, lower than expected cost is just a happy side effect for now. IBM, Apple and most Mac users would gladly sacrifice some of that low-cost advantage if it means we can get significantly more performance.

The bottom line: Apple needs a really low cost G4, which should be low power too for the iBook. When Apple gets such a chip, a low cost desktop Mac is possible. Mojave?

If it's not too far off topic, I'd like to hear some opinions about why Apple selected a 1 GHz G4 with 256K of L2 cache for the iBook, rather than going with the IBM 750 GX, the G3 Gobi that everyone was looking forward to. It is also 1 GHz but with 1 M L2 cache, four times as much, and dissipates less than 10 W. It likely costs less and would have been an easy and good value upgrade for the iBook, which was already a G3. The iBook could have moved to a G4 when the IBM Mojave is here. I'm pretty sure Mojave will be lower cost than a Motorola G4, probably significantly so.

Apple's decision to ignore the Gobe has puzzled me, but evidently no one else. The only comment I've seen are like, "Great, the iBook has a G4." With the larger L2 cache, I would think the G3 would perform as well as the G4 overall. Gobe would be faster on everything except AltiVec accelerated applications. From a value standpoint, it looks to me like Apple jumped to a G4 too soon. Comments?

I have a feeling you are right. Except for lack of AltiVec, Gobi would have been a better choice than a Motorola G4 in every way, battery life (as you point out), performance (1 MB L2 cache), power (under 10 Watts) and price, most likely.

I've been wondering about something else regarding a good value, low-end Mac, but I doubt there are many who have an answer to this question. Does HyperTransport add cost to a system? That is, how does its cost compare with the standard way of connecting system components, before the G5? I was wondering whether it made sense to use HyperTransport in low-end products?

That is what I was hoping to hear. Thank you.

I reread the post about your little appliance idea. (The middle of page one if someone is looking for it.) I don't know what you have in mind regarding hardware, but my neighbor wanted a good size screen (17 inch CRT) and a standard keyboard. He also needed a hard drive to store the documents he creates and a connection for his printer, to print his word processor output. If your appliance can provide all that, it would be a great product and would suffice for many folks I know. If it is anything less, I'm pretty sure my neighbor would not buy it, nor would I.

Thinking about your idea, if it is an accessory for broadband internet service it does not need a CD-ROM drive. It only needs an Ethernet port and two USB ports. Since it doesn't have a conventional OS, Apple could have a basic set of free applications, on the hard drive and available on line. Obviously, these would only work for the appliance. There needs to be email, an internet browser and a simple word processor minimum. If the hard drive crashes, there must be a built in way to download another copy of the appliance's simple OS from Apple. This appliance might sell with six months free .Mac usage, for backing up documents and bookmarks.

Just a thought.

Many here feel the same and express it in many way. It's often stated that a Mac must meet certain standards, usually involving quality, I/O ports and performance. Anything less is not a Mac, would hurt Apple's reputation and would take too many sales away from better Macs. Performance of a really cheap Windows PC is also cited as a major source of customer dissatisfaction. Such points all have merit, which makes it really difficult to offer an opposing view. I will try, because I believe there are other issues that are equally important, if not more so.

Apple must begin to increase market share significantly, and a low priced entry level computer is a good way, maybe the only way, to do it and do it noticeably so. A definite upward trend in market share builds confidence, and Apple's developers, business partners and potential customers need this confidence. If market share stays where it is, or moves up very weakly and inconsistently, it will begin to erode confidence in Apple. I believe this point alone is reason enough for Apple to offer a low price computer that runs Mac OS X. The exact price is debatable, but the oft stated "under $500 US without monitor" is a good mark in the sand.

Let's consider the argument that a low cost entry level Mac can breed dissatisfaction and hurt Apple's image, as customers try to get by cheap and do not consider future needs. As time goes by they get dissatisfied because their computer cannot do more. Is that so bad? What happens now in the Windows world? Do unhappy customers begin to bash the Windows PC and switch to a Mac? No! Usually they calm down and realize it was their own mistake. When they finally do buy a better computer, it will be one that runs all the new software applications they just bought. If my neighbor ever gets interested in doing more, he will surely buy a much better Windows PC, and pay more than for the eMac he could have purchased a few weeks ago.

Within the last two years, I've know several first time PC buyers who never seriously considered a Mac because of price. Also, two families I know very well switched from Macs to a Windows. Their old Performa 630 and 6400 got replaced with a Dell and HP. Price was the only issue. None of these folks are dissatisfied with their Windows PC. Their standards are not very high. Why shouldn't Apple get this kind of business and increase market share of the Mac OS X platform? Will an entry level model tarnish the Macintosh name? Apple can choose another name. The only real consideration is how to make a profit on entry level computers and not reduce sales too much on better Macs. Do we think it is impossible to achieve such a goal?

Regarding profit, Apple does not need to meet Dell's prices, but just get closer enough so many will consider Apple. If the Apple product is perceived as being better, or happens to be better looking, many will pay a small difference to get it. Only companies like Dell, who try to sell to everyone, need to have rock bottom prices. Now regarding sales of better Macs, it is these better Macs that people will upgrade to when they wish to do more than their little entry box can do. The entry model needs to be limited, by design. You may argue that many will be satisfied with these limitations and will never buy a better Mac. True! However, these folks will not buy an Apple at all if a low priced model is not available. All those mentioned in the paragraph above are satisfied with their limited Windows PCs. Mac was not an option to them simply because of price.

I've only touched on the consumer market here. A low cost computer to run OS X on the desktop is obviously needed for business and schools too. It's difficult for me to understand what is taking Apple so long to provide it. I'm hoping they are simply getting all their other "duck" in a row before adding this one. Technology is now making this "duck" easier to achieve than ever. There are now video chips for $10 and a low cost Gobi, 750GX, from IBM. If it's not a Mac, and it's limited, maybe it does not need a G4. Anyone for iPippin or ePippin?

You can make a lot of business arrangements work with good contracts. The question is whether it is worth the effort of keeping it under control. Is there a benefit that out weighs the problems? If I understand your proposal, you suggest that Apple give the entire low-end Mac OS X market to a clone maker, for a fee. Now two companies must make a profit on the cheapest of all models. Hard to do. Strike one. Also, Apple and the clone maker would have conflicting goals. Apple will want to limit low end models so better Macs keep selling well, but a clone maker will want to exploit low end models to make as many sales as possible. Strike two. It could be make to work, so it isn't out, but it would cause endless headaches in my opinion.