or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Justifying Higher Mac Prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justifying Higher Mac Prices - Page 3

post #81 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I was talking about desktops. You will not find a machine that compares to the iBook.

My bad, I almost wanted that notebook.

post #82 of 159
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.

News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #83 of 159
I respectfully disagree in a couple of ways. The fact that Apple's hardware sales represent their profitability and ability to finance the R&D of everything the company does, means it must cost more. End of story...or is it?

So, does this cost differential mean nobody will buy? Sure, if the customer is uninformed, which is probably the same number as the market share comparisson. Have a nice day.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #84 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.

News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.

Amen!!
post #85 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
where do you get that system from, or are you talking about individually bought parts?

You can get a similar price from any PC manufactere witg similar specs. Go to best buy and check it out: Sony, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell. This is appealing to the average current PC user because they already have a monitor. For the $1800 of the imac you could have a 19" monitor and a tower with 512 RAM, 160HC, and 128-256 video. And a printer.

So lets pretend your local computer superstore carries Apple products, and it is pretty easy to argue that the processor is not really important, but if you buy a Mac you get 1/2 the hard drive 1/2 the RAM and 1/2 to 1/4 of the video memory in an equivalently priced PC. Pretty easy decision for the average PC user.

I am a 20 year PC user and I just bought my first mac, an ibook and I con't wait for the g5 powerbooks to come out, but you won't see me purchase an apple desktop because I can get a lot more PC for half of the price of the Apple desktops.


PS: apple doesn't make all their margin on powermacs. Its the powerbooks that take the cake. Laptops make up like 50% of Apple sales.


*** Actually the 12" ibook was the first thing that made me think about switching. I had a 12" Sony laptop. When it went out after about 14 months I looked for a nother 12" notebook and they were all 2x as much as I paid initially. (my Sony 12" was like $1400 in 1998 so really really cheap)


I think the most important goal for Apple is before the marketing is getting the specs up to speed. The laptops match up pretty well, although there are cheaper PC laptops, Apple's are much more capable gaming/video editing machines than the the 600-1200 PC notebooks. Even the powerbooks, although a little steep, compare well with the Centrino notebooks. But Apple should really make wireless standard across the powerbook line. for $1100 and up on the PC side you get built in wireless.

Once the the RAM, hard drive and video are up to par with similarly priced PCs, Apple can start an Apple hardware marketing campaign. $1800 should get you 512 RAM and 160 hard drive in a desktop, no contest.
post #86 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I respectfully disagree in a couple of ways. The fact that Apple's hardware sales represent their profitability and ability to finance the R&D of everything the company does, means it must cost more.

A.) Not unique

B.) Not my problem
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #87 of 159
Hm. Just a thought. Do some people ignore the difference between 'expensive' and 'overpriced'? A good expensive thing is not necessarily overpriced, it just costs more than a bad cheap crap.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #88 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.

News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.

In general... if new users cared more about price & specs than they do function and form... the iPod wouldn't have nearly the market share it does. What is it now... something like 35%? It is by far the most expensive product in it's class and there are alternatives now... which perform just as well (and to some even better)for a price 25% or more less. What Apple does works... There will always be a population willing to pay a premium for whatever reason. Yes... there are lots of people who will go out and get the most cost effective solution... but that hardly covers everyone. Alot of us feel there is more to a computer than just the "numbers"... that's typically what makes a Mac person a Mac person. It's the whole "feel" of the product.

I know I can go out and buy a Wintel box at dirt cheap prices... right on to to thousands of dollars. You go Apple because you want more out of your computer than a number cruncher. You want something that just screams "touch me". I think the whole "Think Different" slogan still works (well... except for the iPod because we can hardly call that being different any more).
post #89 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.

News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.

new users usually don't even know what the specs mean, and salespeople at the local office depot tell them that more is better so they can sell a higher dollar system. When they ask "What about a Mac?" the sales people say "There is no software for them" or they point out the CPU speed and say they are slower not knowing how they work. I have witnessed this many times myself. I have picked up numerous customers that way. When I tell them the benefits of a mac they say "really?" In my experience new user are timid about using a PC, afraid that it will sit on their desk and not be used because they don't know how to use it. When I explain the benefits of a mac 75-85% of new computer users go mac. I switched my mom to a mac and she loves it. She could not seem to get anything to work on her XP machine. She was calling me everyday about one problem or another. She too was timid about doing anything, afraid it would not work. Now she is buzzing along like an expert.

New Users Don't Care About Specs!! It is geeks like you that tell them specs are important. No offense. New users don't even know what the specs mean!
post #90 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
A.) Not unique

B.) Not my problem

No, it is unique, because Apple is unique. Apple is the only company left doing what they do, and if you want to buy what they make, you pay a premium. So it is unique, and it is your problem if you like and want to use it.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #91 of 159
I guess if I start with all the reasons I have stood firmly by PCs and hated Macs... it would be something like this:

- Macs are way over priced
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.

Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.

If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.
post #92 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by X X
You're right! That's not a decision you want to be in marketing wise. If Apple had the same brialliance in their marketing as they do in their engineering then I believe more people wouldn't feel they'd need windows to run the internet.

That's an easy decision to make from the comfort of an armchair.

Unfortunately for your thesis, Apple is currently considered a brilliant marketer, and if you look at the success of their non-Mac ventures you can see that for yourself. And, given that they have succeeded in clawing themselves back from irrelevance to one of the top brands in any category, it's safe to say that something besides marketing is holding the Mac back.

One of the things I've consistently argued - and Joey backs it up in his last post - is that you have to actually use a Mac to understand its advantages. If you list what a Mac can do, and make a campaign around it, it'll be fundamentally indistinguishable from MS' ads for XP Home, or HP's "digital lifestyle" ads. From the ads, you'd think everything was as effortless as a Mac (scratch that: twice as effortless) and that's a problem for Apple. Everyone promises the Moon.

So, if you're a truly brilliant strategist and you're faced with a major obstacle that you could overcome, perhaps, at a significant cost, then you find a route around it. Whence the iPod, and the real brilliance of the iPod from a marketing perspective: You have to hold and use an iPod to understand its advantages as well, and millions upon millions of people are doing just that. In that respect, as a premium-priced device that is not packed with features and which has an elegance that you discover in person, it's a great way to teach people to appreciate Macs. And the more people there are who use it with Windows, and who use iTunes, the more people will appreciate Apple's design and integration skills, and the more people will realize that Apple is not an island cut off from the world.

Something that gets people to conclude that from their own experience is worth more than any marketing campaign that directly tackles the issue.

Quote:
However, my comment was in regards to Apple's whole history, not just the current times, which the internet would fall under. Faelyn's comment as well was in regards to Apple's whole history, which Steve Jobs, himself, made reference to in some meeting about how Apple used to behave arrogantly.

I don't see how those are at all relevant now, though. Induction over Apple's history fails because, for once, Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform.

Quote:
I think you'd agree that Apple hasn't always had the best business decisions, whether it's dealing with the lawsuit by Microsoft in 1989 or by offering a thousand different configurations for a computer.

True, but what Apple did in 1989 or 1995 has no bearing on what they're doing now, except perhaps as a historical lesson in what not to do. Steve has also made it quite plain that he thinks of Apple as starting over.
"...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 #93 of 159
I do not believe that your theory is incorrect with respect to the eMac. Sales of the iMac may depress margins but that may very well be the result of not obtaining economies of scale with repsect to this machine.

Your evaluation of the components in the eMac are pretty accurate. Most likely the tube is the most expensive part and is probally costing Apple between 20 & $30 wholesale. If this machine is actually depressing margins than the physical design must be an issue, it is not a sum of the parts issue. Then agian none of Apples hardware reflect the cost of the parts, one often precieves Apple to be a giant money sucking machine and the Macs the suction cup that gathers the money.

One possibility is the lack of "design for manufacturing". The G5 towers do appear to be designed for volume manufacturing. Niether the e or i mac seem to be manufacturing friendly, this could raise the cost to a substaintial degree.

Quote:
Originally posted by Antithesis
Well, that would pretty much blow a hole through my theory, then.

Still, I'm left wondering WHAT Apple's doing to make the eMac so darned expensive to manufacture. Somehow, 1+1 just ain't equaling 2.

*shrugs*

Oh, well. I appreciate the clarification, anyways.

-Antithesis
post #94 of 159
Funny how in one paragraphy you say pricing isn't the problem then directly below you point out the pricing is a problem.

Let me let you in on a little secret pricing is the problem. Apple if charging top dollar for hardware that is at times three or more generations old. The company always under delivers hardware, that is on the day of delivery the hardware is not competitive in the market. 6 months later it is still available at the same price while the rest of the world has moved a generation or two beyond.

When discussing the possibility of a XMac people constantly state that they don't want cheap hardware coming from Apple. Currently though what they get from Apple is expensive throughly outdated hardware and they want use to believe that this is good! It is not folks.

Apples name is out there, much more so than DENON, but along with that is the perception that they have hardware that has litle value in it. The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. Unfortunately the perception to some extent is justified, I would consider it irresponsible for any school to use tax payer dollars to buy the current eMac for example. You do not use my tax dollars to buy outdated, low functionality equipment for any reason.

It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!

Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
The average consumer doesn't even consider macs when purchasing a new computer... because its like choosing a Denon receiver over a Pioneer / Kenwood / Sony / Panasonic receiver. The Denon is usually more powerful and nicer than any of those other receivers. But the name is not out there like it can be. I really don't think the problem is pricing as much as the name.

The problem I have with apple is they keep the same prices for months. The PowerMac has been out for 7 months now... prices are STILL the same. That is definitely a problem that needs to be dealth with. It doesn't make sense to buy 7 month old hardware for the same price as it was the day it was released. Apple needs to have price drops in their products... not just when new products come out but as they deteriorate as a value on the market also.
post #95 of 159
I guess the "locked" pricing that Apple has always had is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand... the products do age and remain at the same price until they're discontinued or a new model comes out. On the other hand... you don't have to worry about spending "x" dollars... and then the next day find out the price just dropped significantly. It also makes shopping for Mac stuff a lot easier. You don't really have to go through the madness of checking every site for the best price since you won't usually find a difference of more than a few $$ for any current items.

If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.

Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.


The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"



"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.
post #96 of 159
Hi Joey;

I thought I was done postin and then I read your post. You hit your target like a sharp shooter I have to add a few myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Joey
I guess if I start with all the reasons I have stood firmly by PCs and hated Macs... it would be something like this:

- Macs are way over priced

This is cetainly the perception with the desktop lines. It is in fact pretty accurate with repsect to the desktops. Which leads one to ask why if Apple can produce a competitive laptop it can't do the same for the desktop?
Quote:
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.

Actually I never ask this question. I've been running Linux for a few years now. The reality is if you have the software you need to pursue your interests you are all set.

The problem is many people are gamers and equate software with games for their PC's. This is a problem for both Apple and the Linux crowds if they intend to use their machines as gaiming devices. This has never been my intention so it is not a problem. It can however be for some people and they tend to over emphasis their conerns to others.
Quote:
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC

This is a real concern. Laptop wise Apple use to do real good now it gets out performed in just abotu all categories of shipping hardware. If your budget is at all tight Apple is out of the question.

Frankly this is what has driven me to Linux. The other major PC OS was crap a few years ago, and the Mac was a very poor performer for the dollar invested (still is?). So a quick introduction to Linux sealed the fate of both MS and Apple. It helped of course that my college expereince was all one Unix hardware.
Quote:
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"

Funny thing is I have a lot of people come up to me and ask about computers and which ones they should buy. I often reccomend Macs as they represnet solid machinery for people who are not machinery people if you know what I mean. The last individual to come up to me want a reccomendation on a Dell, not a PC in general but a Dell. The first thing that comes to mind is why not go to a local vendor where you get a better deal for a store bought machine.

Nope can't do that wouldn't even consider. Further inquiry indicated that her son (older woman) owned a Power Mac G5 (envy setting in) so I suggested she look at the Mac line. Nope I want a Dell! Mind you not a PC but a Dell.

So I have to wonder is it all marketing. It often appears that way, direct exposure to Apple hardware does not lead to intersts in buying that hardware.
Quote:
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.

I often try to convince people of the elgance and stability of Linux relative to the ocmmercial offerings. People probally get sick of hearing it. On the other hand I don't even bother with people that don't have a clue.
Quote:

Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.

I've often looked at the ibook, it certainly is a reasonably priced machine from Apple. The reason for the interest is that OS/x is a reasonable laptop alternative to getting Linux to run on portable hardware.

There is still an issue of viability though. When using Linux, or OS/X for that matter, to the fullest memeory becomes very valuable. The fact that Apple short changes its machines memory wise puts me off. I have a hard time trusitng a company that would purposely be sof far behind the times.

On the iBook the memory issue is a big problem as the base memory is soldered in. For a portable this is a good thing for reliability. It is however a marketing fiasco if the complement of soldered in memmory is two to three generations behind where it should be.
Quote:

If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.

Here we go agian, suggesting that a low cost desktop machine would be a piece of crap. Using todays technology it should be mcuh better than the ibook and cost less. It is ot a question of building a crap machine it is a quesiton of building a cost competitive machine. If Apple can do so with a iBook there is nothing to keep them form doing it with a desktop.

Clearly yoou point out that value and price sells machines. This is what I've been concerned about for some time, Apple is loosing makret share relative to desktops due to their very high prices on outdate equipment. It is not about makeing a crap machine, it is about makeing a machine for a market that they are not even in! The fact that it is low cost does not mean it is crap any more than the iBook is crap because of its low cost.

The iBook is crap for much the same reasons as many other Apple machines. What you pay for the machine does not justify the very small base memory configuration. The iBook fortuantely does meet or exceeds a number of other qualifications which makes it a reasonable purchase for some. Apples desktop line misses in so many features that it is amazing that they sell at all.
Quote:
post #97 of 159
Jesus, since when did it matter that you could use Cakewalk Home Studio on a 5 Ghz PC when instead you could use Garageband on a capable 1 Ghz G4? It is not about price to me, it is about platform, software, design, and simplicity.

If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.

Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #98 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Joey
I guess the "locked" pricing that Apple has always had is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand... the products do age and remain at the same price until they're discontinued or a new model comes out. On the other hand... you don't have to worry about spending "x" dollars... and then the next day find out the price just dropped significantly. It also makes shopping for Mac stuff a lot easier. You don't really have to go through the madness of checking every site for the best price since you won't usually find a difference of more than a few $$ for any current items.



The problem is that within months you are paying far to much for the machine. Further when Apple comes out with updates it can leave one with a sour taste in his mouth to know that and upgraded machine is out that is a nice improvement but cost the same or less than his machine did.
Quote:

If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.

I think you missed the point here. Schools aren't buying Apple hardware anymore. At least not to the extent that they use to. One reason is that it would be very questionalble for any administrator to sink money into a class room of outdated e or i Macs. Really how many voters would be happy to see such waste when they can barely get funding for non mandated programs.

Apple is at fault because they do not have competitive machines. One can not make a reasonable argument for spending money on an eMac (being Apples only low cost machine) for impelementation into a schools computer program. It is slow, has limited memory capacity and is all around outdated. That is Apples fault, they abandoned a market they once had a fairly solid lock on.
Quote:

Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.

Well this is a bit of a change if it is in fact the case. I owuld tend to agree though that a lot of people buy PC's with no clue as to there usage.
Quote:

The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"

Well as far as wives leaving their husbands many have left for far less.

IN any event I still maintain that people often perceive Mac owners as having more money than they know what to do with.

Quote:


"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.

Now no one has broght up the stupid or ignorrant labels until know. I think those labels are rather sad. It is not like I would not buy a Mac, OS/X does have some attractive features, it is just that I can not justify the expense of the desktop line.

Lets face it, you pay a lot of money for a machine that doesn't perform all that well. If money is an issue you spend that money on PC hardware and find a way to make it work to your satisfaction (LINUX). This may not be a perfect solution but it is viable and very low cost.

The point is Apple does not have a similar entry point into their OS. I can not go out and buy a headless G5, for $850, to attach to any of the monitors I have sitting around the house. Even if I could it is very likely that Apple would find a way to cripple the machine, mcuh as it has done with the eMac and Imacs.

So Apple has givne up on a segment of the market that would love to have a reasonably priced desktop. This segment will not look at the more expensive machines especially with the current value equation. Apple through the iBook has demonstrated an abiltiy to market a machine that meets a low price point and is a fairly good value, why they can't do this with the desktop is beyond me.
Quote:
post #99 of 159
I didn't mean to suggest that an inexpensive machine need be a bad machine... I just meant that Apple should not produce a low end machine unless they can produce something outstanding at that lower price point.

My first and only experience with a Mac is the iBook... so I think I tend to have that in my mind as I'm thinking about competetive pricing. I don't really get the whole eMac thing at all. It just seems so non-Mac. It's big, clunky, not particularly innovative (as it's little brother the one-piece iMac was in it's day). I wouldn't even begin to try to defend that one or understand the logic anyone would have in getting one.

I have to agree with the memory issue in the iBook. 128MB being hardwired and 128MB in a slot is an unusual configuration. It also kinda sucks when you upgrade the memory... you can pretty much trash the 128MB that you take out (unless you know someone to give it to)... it's also often much cheaper to get say two 256MB or two 512MB memory modules than one 512MB or 1GB.

Dell has got the marketing/advertising thing down pretty well... Like you said... people refer to Dell by name. They advertise like crazy... and tout their excellent customer service. The result... so many people think that Dell is an excellent company and they provide excellent service. My experience with Dell is that their machines are on par with other major manufacturers and their customer support is useless (at least the technical end).

I guess that's another plus for the Apple side (and perhaps another reason to pay a little more)... Apple makes the OS and the hardware... so they typically work together flawlessly. As you mentioned getting Linux to run on a notebook can be rough... maybe not getting it to run... but getting it to recognize all the components, power management, etc can be a challange. The same holds true for a Windows notebook. Windows has tons of drivers built in... and you'll likely get them on some "restore" CD that comes with the box. My Vaio notebook was a pain in the ass... It came with XP Home and tons of Sony crap-ware. I wanted to do a clean install of XP Pro on it. No problem with installing the OS... I just could not get the drivers (keyboard function keys, power management, etc). They were in some Sony proprietary format. They have an "application restore" CD that says it won't run under that version of Windows (Pro vs. Home)... couldn't download them anywhere. I ended up doing a full restore from their CDs and then doing an upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro. I know there's tons of stuff on there I don't need... I just can't easily get rid of it. With my iBook and OS X... I do a clean install of the OS and the OS knows exactly what everything is on my iBook. It doesn't prompt me to insert a driver CD... it doesn't search for a driver on the HDD and then not find it.

These are some of the "intangible" things I think that are worth paying more for. I'd rather have a machine that "just works" and pay a bit more for it (even if it is slower... I'm not a power user... it just has to do what I need it for).

(hmmm... if I actually spent this much time on my actual work... I'd be due for a raise! I wondered why they keep moving my desk closer to the door)
post #100 of 159
Frist off my concenr is abotu havign the Mac around in a few years as aviable platform. It will not be around if market share continues to erode. Without market share "platform, software, design and simplicity" go away.

Apple will simply erode away to nothingness as a computer producer if they can not increase market share dramatically. They will never do this with the current price performance ratios they have. Performance is an issue with Mac hardware, it is silly to deny this.

As far as the PC world goes Windows is nto the only option. The problem is that Apple has removed themselves from being an option for anybody who has to take care with the money he has due to the rather sad state of the desktop line.

Apple has to become much more performance oriented and price sensitive if they are ever going to be able to regain market share. The advantages offered by OS/X, there are many, are not significant enough to sell the hardware they currently have on the market in a share expanding manner. This is a matter of fact and can be seen in Apples sales figures.

You can continue to belive that Software and OS should sell the hardware. The problem is there is no proof in the pudding. If the OS and software supported by the Mac was able to sell hardware Apple would not be slipping away from us. The fact is it is slipping away. One has to ownder how well the Mac will be supported software wise when Apple becomes #12 or 18 in the manufacture sales ratings. Do you really believe that software will be all that plentifull when that happens? Really do you?

Last I heard Apple was #7 in sales, that is already a concern. Do you believe that continuing to sell underpwoered and outdated hardware will improve that position? It won't but I think deep down everyone realizes that. The question becomes how do the new machines that are coming fit into the market place. Will they be marketed so that Apple atleast has a chance of remaining viable in the market place? The next couple of months will do much to determine Apples future as a computer manufacture. No effort to increase market share is certain to cause considerable problems for the platform.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Jesus, since when did it matter that you could use Cakewalk Home Studio on a 5 Ghz PC when instead you could use Garageband on a capable 1 Ghz G4? It is not about price to me, it is about platform, software, design, and simplicity.

If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.

Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
post #101 of 159
OS X for x86

Microsoft didn't make it's money on hardware. I know you can't get the whole Mac experience using X on a non-Mac platform. But here Apple has a viable OS... one on par with consumer usability as Windows XP, and they don't take advantage of this opportunity. With the way things have been going in the world... more and more people are switching from Windows to the only other platform they can switch to without getting new hardware... and that's Linux. While Linux has come a long way.... it's not nearly as mature (from a consumer/ease of use point of view) as OS X. There is a real revenue opportunity here for Apple. I'm sure they must be able to see this. Every person, company, municipality, or country that moves away from Windows to Linux... could have moved to X. The momentum behind this move may already be so great as to make it impossible for Apple to take advantage of. Bring in some revenue in the OS end where profits are high... then they wouldn't have to worry about having tight margins on their hardware. People would get the feel for OS X and even maybe decide to get Mac hardware.

I'm not really sure I see a negative to this at all. I know talk of porting X over to x86 has been going on since the OS was released. This just seems to be an excellent time to release something like that and take advantage of the changing tides (if it's not already too late).
post #102 of 159
I think maybe I'm understanding you a bit better. What I find frustrating is that Apple does have a nice platform and pricing structure for their laptops. Not perfect but at least not totoally unreasonable. There inability to compete in the desktop arena is the killer for many people searching for a system.

Quote:
Originally posted by Joey
I didn't mean to suggest that an inexpensive machine need be a bad machine... I just meant that Apple should not produce a low end machine unless they can produce something outstanding at that lower price point.

My first and only experience with a Mac is the iBook... so I think I tend to have that in my mind as I'm thinking about competetive pricing. I don't really get the whole eMac thing at all. It just seems so non-Mac. It's big, clunky, not particularly innovative (as it's little brother the one-piece iMac was in it's day). I wouldn't even begin to try to defend that one or understand the logic anyone would have in getting one.


My first and only experiece with a Mac was a Mac Plus, which as you can imagine was many years ago. When it came time to upgrade as it always does with PC's I had a choice of going the PPC transitional machines or a conventional PC. The conventional PC won out on price by a long shot, actually to the point of not having a choice. At the time Windows sucked, I eventually upgraded to NT just to get a somewhat stable system. Even after taking this path I have keept a close eye on the Mac market to see if it will ever be viable to jump back in agian. Lets face it in just about every version of MS OS/s i've run there has been a feeling of klugdiness. Then along cam Linux and Redhat 5.0, with in a half a year I had erased all of my MS OS'es from my various machines. Now with a viable OS on my machines the expense of Apple hardware is glaring.

Frankly I don't understnad the logic of it anymore than you do.
Quote:
I have to agree with the memory issue in the iBook. 128MB being hardwired and 128MB in a slot is an unusual configuration. It also kinda sucks when you upgrade the memory... you can pretty much trash the 128MB that you take out (unless you know someone to give it to)... it's also often much cheaper to get say two 256MB or two 512MB memory modules than one 512MB or 1GB.

Yes it is unusual, but I do believe no the solder in 256MB. could be wrong with that but I do believe that they upgraded. But even that is rather sad considering just about all machines vended on the i86 side come with 512mB of RAM. What is even worst is that OS/x can make use of that memory in a far better manner than some of the MS OS's.

I have nothing agianst some RAM being soldered in, I truely believe that this results in a more reliable machine especially for the portable sector. The problem is by not soldering in a reasonable quanity they really screw up the value equation. Not only do Apples customers loose with the initial purchase they loose when upgrading. So one has to wonder does Apple really care about its customers and do they care about waste!
Quote:

Dell has got the marketing/advertising thing down pretty well... Like you said... people refer to Dell by name. They advertise like crazy... and tout their excellent customer service. The result... so many people think that Dell is an excellent company and they provide excellent service. My experience with Dell is that their machines are on par with other major manufacturers and their customer support is useless (at least the technical end).

The Dell thing drives me crazy. Especially when you have a person with no defined need for the PC other than internet access and E-mail. Cheap here really makes sense. The problem is if money is a question then how do you suggest an Apple. That is how do you say that you should go out and buy this expensive Apple, that is slower than just about any PC and has very limited expansion capability, in place of a much cheaper and faster machine that does what you want.

If somebody is looking for a laptop the equation is much differrent. Even here Apple is coming under tremendous pressure. AS you point out it is fortunate that many of the vendors on the PC side are actually marketing in such a way as to drive off customers. It is a shame that things have become so complex on the PC side that installing a base OS (even a MS one) is now a major problem.
Quote:

I guess that's another plus for the Apple side (and perhaps another reason to pay a little more)... Apple makes the OS and the hardware... so they typically work together flawlessly. As you mentioned getting Linux to run on a notebook can be rough... maybe not getting it to run... but getting it to recognize all the components, power management, etc can be a challange. The same holds true for a Windows notebook. Windows has tons of drivers built in... and you'll likely get them on some "restore" CD that comes with the box. My Vaio notebook was a pain in the ass... It came with XP Home and tons of Sony crap-ware. I wanted to do a clean install of XP Pro on it. No problem with installing the OS... I just could not get the drivers (keyboard function keys, power management, etc). They were in some Sony proprietary format. They have an "application restore" CD that says it won't run under that version of Windows (Pro vs. Home)... couldn't download them anywhere. I ended up doing a full restore from their CDs and then doing an upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro. I know there's tons of stuff on there I don't need... I just can't easily get rid of it. With my iBook and OS X... I do a clean install of the OS and the OS knows exactly what everything is on my iBook. It doesn't prompt me to insert a driver CD... it doesn't search for a driver on the HDD and then not find it.

These are some of the "intangible" things I think that are worth paying more for. I'd rather have a machine that "just works" and pay a bit more for it (even if it is slower... I'm not a power user... it just has to do what I need it for).

Just working is important but affordable is also. Nothing in this world is perfect so I'm not suggesting that Apple out sell PC's on price. That I understand would be difficult, I just don't want to feel as if I've take a trip to the used car dealer when buying an Apple. I don't want hidden surprises and extra expenses down the road.
Quote:

(hmmm... if I actually spent this much time on my actual work... I'd be due for a raise! I wondered why they keep moving my desk closer to the door)

post #103 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Last I heard Apple was #7 in sales, that is already a concern.

It is a concern, but before Steve came back, they were #9.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #104 of 159
(only got my iBook about a month ago... 128MB soldered and 128MB in a slot... I know there was some serious outcry with the last generation of iBooks only having 128MB of memory... so now they just populated the one slot with an additional 128MB... so in upgrading... that module is useless )
post #105 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Frist off my concenr is abotu havign the Mac around in a few years as aviable platform. It will not be around if market share continues to erode. Without market share "platform, software, design and simplicity" go away.

Never mind that their installed base is actually growing. You sell software to a given number of people, not to a percentage of the overall market. I don't think we're going to lose OmniGroup any time soon. Heck, they're NeXTies. Apple's market probably looks huge to them.

Quote:
As far as the PC world goes Windows is nto the only option. The problem is that Apple has removed themselves from being an option for anybody who has to take care with the money he has due to the rather sad state of the desktop line.

Did you take a gander at last quarter's sales figures? People are buying laptops now, and increasingly so. The era of the consumer desktop is ending. This is one reason why Apple is making a big to-do about their laptop line. They see the trends, and they're on top of them. This is also why they're pushing iBooks for schools. The eMac is the classic Apple educational machine: A plain, functional and bulletproof AIO. It's there if you want it, but it's not what Apple's really trying to sell to edu.

This, of course, plays to Apple's strengths.

Quote:
The advantages offered by OS/X, there are many, are not significant enough to sell the hardware they currently have on the market in a share expanding manner. This is a matter of fact and can be seen in Apples sales figures.

Apple's sales figures say nothing of the sort.

They say that roughly the same number of people bought Macs last quarter - over 800,000. From my own experience, people don't even get to the hardware performance. They don't get past the word "Macintosh," and it wouldn't matter if the iMac cost $499 and had 16 10GHz G6s in it today, because "it can't run Word and it can't do the Internet and I don't want to learn another operating system."

Quote:
One has to ownder how well the Mac will be supported software wise when Apple becomes #12 or 18 in the manufacture sales ratings.

Actually, between consolidations and bankruptcies on the PC side, I don't know if there will be a rank that low in a few years. At any rate, they're growing the absolute number of people using Macs, and they've reversed the education trend at least for the time being.

All that said, I think the curtain is coming down fast on the desktop G4. The hardware will be there. It's mostly just a question of whether they can bring the iMac down to the "sweet spot" price point (which involves a total redesign), when they can put the SuperDrive in the iBook (so that it can finally join the Digital Hub as a full member), and whether the iPod campaign has the desired effect of making people reconsider the Macintosh as a choice.
"...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 #106 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Joey
In general... if new users cared more about price & specs than they do function and form... the iPod wouldn't have nearly the market share it does. What is it now... something like 35%? It is by far the most expensive product in it's class and there are alternatives now... which perform just as well (and to some even better)for a price 25% or more less. What Apple does works... There will always be a population willing to pay a premium for whatever reason. Yes... there are lots of people who will go out and get the most cost effective solution... but that hardly covers everyone. Alot of us feel there is more to a computer than just the "numbers"... that's typically what makes a Mac person a Mac person. It's the whole "feel" of the product.

I know I can go out and buy a Wintel box at dirt cheap prices... right on to to thousands of dollars. You go Apple because you want more out of your computer than a number cruncher. You want something that just screams "touch me". I think the whole "Think Different" slogan still works (well... except for the iPod because we can hardly call that being different any more).

Different markets, computer have turned into a necessity, so the price you will pay goes down. Let's think about something like basic t-shirts, most of us pick them up by the truckload at Walmart or Target, and we might spend a little more at Gap and Old Navy. Then the really rick people buy the $50-100 t-shirts like Le Petit Bateau. The vast majority of us wouldn't be caught dead paying that much. Now let's look at coffee: frappacinos are a luxury item to make you feel good, you will pay more to treat yourself, but the cheap people still have 7-11. This is where the ipod fits in, sure it is more, but not that much more and you like it better. Mp3 players also hit at a different price point. When it is under $500 you might be willing to pay more for a better one. when it hits $1000 like computers, you want to save us much as possible.

No comparison: it is worth to pay more for an ipod because you get more, and even the cheapest one surpasses most people's needs. but computers aren't necessarily like that so you want all you can get for your money. At this point Apple desktops do not qualify. Windows XP is good enough for the vast majority of people and comes out a lot cheaper.


If you look around the boards you will see a lot of switchers here who chose ibooks, because the price was reasonable compared to the competion and it was at a price that made it reasonable to experiment with. The ibook compared with PC notebooks is a tiny bit slower, a little less hard drive, great portability and battery life. The price/value/specs ratio works out pretty well considering the Sony 505 series starts at about $1700, so you will save about $400 choosing an ibook and adding a wireless card/hard drive and RAM.

But no apple desktop is appealing/cheap enough to take the risk. There reallyaren't a lot of first time computer buys that are left that are easy to sell on an Apple, and most of the first timers are recent immigrants with limited funding. $800 is out of reach, especially since you can get more of everything and a printer for $200 less.
post #107 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
The Dell thing drives me crazy. Especially when you have a person with no defined need for the PC other than internet access and E-mail. Cheap here really makes sense. The problem is if money is a question then how do you suggest an Apple. That is how do you say that you should go out and buy this expensive Apple, that is slower than just about any PC and has very limited expansion capability, in place of a much cheaper and faster machine that does what you want.

I've read your posts with interest Wizard, but I do beleive you tend to go overboard with some of your arguements. Or at least, I see things very differently. Take for example your statement above. I agree if all someone want to do is e-mail and web, then a cheap computer is just fine and makes sense. I would suggest looking at a used Mac as a Mac option (I was using a beige 266 G3 not too long ago and was doing much more than e-mail and web with it.) However, I will grant you Apple is not in the commodity CPU market and you can pick up a cheap and new PC for less than an eMac or iBook. Apple just isn't going after this market segment. Why do you think they created iLife? You need a decent computer to use these apps and your not going to get it from Apple for $600 and I would bet PC options at that price point suck for movie editing etc.

Now in the same paragraph where you mention cheap PCs and basic e-mail/web, you go on to complain about expansion options. By this I suppose you mean CPU and video card upgrades. First off, I think most people interested in the basics don't ever want to crack open their computer and start switching out cards. I just don't see people on a tight budget or people with minimal computing needs being interested in expansion options. I've worked with Macs in University Biomedical research settings for about 15 years. The only upgrades I've every seen are RAM and Software and one dead hard drive.

Furthermore in regards to value, we've gt a bunch of beige Macs being used daily to surf the web, e-mail, write papers, analyze data, prepare presentations and create graphics. Sure we would all love new machines, but budgets for computers are very tight. The person who is always getting a new computer is the secretary who uses Dells. She gets 2 Dells for every new Mac we get in the lab. The longevity of Macs goes against your arguements that they are completely outdated every few months and are a bad value.

I also think there is a lot of value in the idea that things work on a Mac more often then not. Two recent examples: A relative of mine was trying to hook up a multifunctinal printer/scanner/fax machine from Epson on their PC. I didn't work after a long software install process. To see if it was a hardware problem, I installed the driver on my laptop (didn't install the rest of the software) in about a minute, plugged it in and printed my desktop-no problem. After a week of on and off re-installs on the PC the thing was still not working. Second, I was visting a collegue and wanted to transfer a PDF file on to their computer using a USB falsh drive that I have. The thing worked on my Mac from the start, but we tried several PC's in her department and it was never recognized, we just got requests to install drivers from the windows CD. PC can be very expensive machines when what you want to do takes you forever to do or when you have to buy another computer because the cheap one you bought isn't good enough. I know of too many examples of this to want to even try messing with a PC.
post #108 of 159
Has anyone here even considered the fact that the Mac is inherently more productive, that the lack of raw speed is made up for in ease and productivity?
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #109 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Has anyone here even considered the fact that the Mac is inherently more productive, that the lack of raw speed is made up for in ease and productivity?

Isnt it pathetic that we have to sit here and make excuses for why Apple tries to fleece the consumer buyer with outdated and overpriced hardware? If I want a two year old processor I'll buy it used. There is really no legitimate excuse for it. A 25% decline in consumer desktop sales speaks louder than words. Is Apple listening?
post #110 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by jade
If you look around the boards you will see a lot of switchers here who chose ibooks, because the price was reasonable compared to the competion and it was at a price that made it reasonable to experiment with.

This last clause is extremely important.

The Mac is a risk. It's an unknown. It's different. It might not work out. So in fact even fairly reasonable prices relative to the hardware are a more significant barrier than they would be from HP or Dell. This is why there's so much clamoring for OS X on x86: It lowers the cost of the risk to $129, more or less, and so Apple's system prices are being implicitly compared to the cost of an operating system.

The iBook succeeds as a switcher machine not only because of its low price in absolute terms, but also because a lot of switchers have nice PC desktops but little or nothing in terms of notebooks, or nothing satisfactory. So it's something they can buy in addition to the big honking Athlon desktop, rather than as a replacement. That also lowers the perceived risk.
"...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 #111 of 159
I think you're being overboard about the state of mind people are in about the Mac platform. It might be a slightly uncomfortable, but I think its the same feeling as having an old but well running car, thats been fine for you. The Mac is the Mercedes, while new, it is not yet familiar and at first will seem harder to handle and operate.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #112 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
That's an easy decision to make from the comfort of an armchair.
...

Something that gets people to conclude that from their own experience is worth more than any marketing campaign that directly tackles the issue.

Joey also supports my statement because 3 out of 4 reservations PC users have are not answered by playing around the a Mac. 3 of those 4 fears have to do with myths or misinformation, which Apple simply hasn't done enough in terms of marketing to try and dispell those fears.

I'm sorry, but seeing a bunch of pretty little iMacs dance around on a white background tells me nothing about how many applications are available, how does the performace compare to the PCs, or informs me of all the features/software you get for the price vs. "cheaper" looking PCs.

Maybe instead of having Jeff Goldblum say, "Hey look iMacs!" he should of been a fly and talked about, "Macs are so easy to use, even a fly can learn them!"

Watching a commercial where a guy keeps making faces at an iMac in a store window doesn't answer those questions either, and neither do the iPod commercials.

The iPod commercials may be doing great selling iPods and getting people to actually take a glance at Apple, but they are not doing anything about trying to dispell the myths that surround Apple's computers.


Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't see how those are at all relevant now, though. Induction over Apple's history fails because, for once, Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform.



True, but what Apple did in 1989 or 1995 has no bearing on what they're doing now, except perhaps as a historical lesson in what not to do. Steve has also made it quite plain that he thinks of Apple as starting over.

They're perfectly relevant given the fact that that was the debate at hand, "Has Apple, historically, made bad business/marketing deceisions?"

You've changed it to only inlcude current times, which is off topic. Ironically, you support the argument with your statement, "Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform."

I agree, they are much better now, and not coincidentally. I can actually see that Apple is starting over and the iPod is a perfect example of that (the success of it proves it).
post #113 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by X X
You've changed it to only inlcude current times, which is off topic. Ironically, you support the argument with your statement, "Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform."

And this is in future hardware because?
post #114 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Has anyone here even considered the fact that the Mac is inherently more productive, that the lack of raw speed is made up for in ease and productivity?

M.tosh, listen to yourself. Not just you, but others who tenaciously defend the indefensible.

1. What we as Mac users and hybrid PC/Mac users know about the Mac is irrelevant. The important thing is what the potential non-Mac using buyer knows.

2. The Mac is not inherently anything. It sounds like you are saying that because it is a Mac, it automatically rises above all defects and limitations. No matter how old the hardware and no matter how high the price, it will always be better the the alternative. It has intrinsic powers to make you more productive by its sheer Macness. That is fanatical and dangerous. That kind of talk does not attract PC users. It frightens them away and confirms their worst fears about the platform.

3. By asking potential buyers to look beyond, even ignore the tangibles such as specs, and focus only on intangibles such as ease of use and inherent productivity, what you are really asking them to do is have "faith." Believe in the Mac. Believe in Steve Jobs. Believe in Apple. Buy a Mac and you won't just be buying a computer, you will be getting religion. Well, they already have a religion and it is not their computer. Their computer is a tool with measurable attributes. It is reasonable to consider those attributes when making a purchase. Apple can't allow "Have Faith" to become their primary sales slogan.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #115 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Buy a Mac and you won't just be buying a computer, you will be getting religion. Well, they already have a religion and it is not their computer. [/B]

It's not? <awful dramatic horror music> Great MV, you have just totally whacked my world view. I spend more time on a Mac than in church.

BTW, I think you post is right on. 8)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #116 of 159
Thread Starter 
I've enjoyed following this discussion, but I'd like regress for a moment to those posts and replies about really low cost Macs. I saw three common misconceptions that always seemed to put an end to the matter in the mind of many people. I don't hope to make a believer out of anyone, but would like to defend this view a little better.

1) Price. Most folks see a low price Mac as an appeal to bargain hunters, those who want to get the cheapest PC. As such, it is seen as a dog-eat-dog contest that Apple cannot win. But surely Apple can think different, and cut-throat competition need not be the reason for a low price Mac. Let's think about price as a risk factor in the buying decision. For those who have never used a Mac, buying a Mac is fraught with uncertainty. To help people decide in favor of a Mac, Apple needs at least one desktop model that has much lower financial risk. It doesn't have to be the cheapest choice for a buyer, but it shouldn't sell for much more than a low cost Windows PC. This point is finally beginning to surface here in the discussion.

2) Image. Many are concerned about a low price Mac having inferior quality, performance and features, which would tarnishing the Mac's image. It's often expressed that a Mac must meet certain standards, and everyone has their own idea of what these are. Well, I think we would all agree that the hardware should meet some standard of quality, but let's consider features and performance. How good should a low price computer be? For the moment, let's say it needs to do a very good job at its intended tasks, but doesn't need to do everything a higher performance Mac can do. Some say just the Mac name itself requires a certain minimum level of performance and features. Well, If Steve Jobs feels this way Apple can calls this bottom of the line machine a Basic Apple, but I'll just call it a Mac until Steve changes it.

3) Profit. There is also concerns that a low priced Mac would yield little or no profit, and its presences in the product line would take sales away from profitable Macs. Some go so far as say it would kill Apple. The road to eliminating profit concerns has already been paved in the previous two points. The final point is that goals for a low price Mac not only can be very modest, but must be, so its performance and features do not compete with better Macs. A low price Mac need not ship with the full set of iLife applications. Just as an iMac can not run Shake well enough to satisfy a film's special effects crew, a low price Mac does not have to run iMovie or Final Cut Express. Then, with sufficiently reduced specifications, its manufacturing cost is lower and profit higher.

The question remaining is whether such a low price Mac would be good for anything? It could certainly satisfy those voicing the oft stated need for email, internet and word processing. It would also make a good computer for small children. Schools might love it. Businesses will finally have a general purpose office Mac that is within their budget. Those still getting by with a Beige G3 and Jaguar might like the big performance boost and the ability to run Panther. Beside these and a dozen other uses, I can't think of a thing it would be good for.
post #117 of 159
I will have to agree about one aspect of apple's marketing, they don't point out one issue that I think would bring a ton of small businesses to the platform, well two.

Reliability. I have had my machine for over a year now with no crashes and no data loss. With a PC one of the two would happen every couple of months. I do not quite understand why they would not want to promote that. Am I the exception. I do anything and everything on my iMac.

Software. I have found just about every type of software that I want for my mac. It seems that there are tons of stuff available, and it is not expensive fro the most part. I know they mention this on their site but they really should put this on top of the list of important facts.

Other than that I think they do a pretty good job.

My dos pesos.
post #118 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

Software. I have found just about every type of software that I want for my mac. It seems that there are tons of stuff available, and it is not expensive fro the most part. I know they mention this on their site but they really should put this on top of the list of important facts.

Well, I'll see that dos pesos and raise you diez centavos.

I agree with you... Apple should do more to show off the massive body of great shareware and freeware apps that make our MacLives so awesome. I would say that full 1/3 of the progs I use daily are made by shareware developers. That body of creative, innovative, and utilitarian developers needs to be trumpeted. OpenSource is great, done voluntarily. M$FT may learn what "reluctant Open Source" is about shortly.

Thats my 2.10. Adios.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #119 of 159
I really think apple should start a new company, call it something like Red Delicious or some other apple type name and build their own upgradeable clone. They could produce all of the upgrades for use with the "clone" and also for Apple. They could then service both company's customers. They could also regulate the release of upgrades to coincide with Apple's newest offerings. Kinda like Gibson Guitars does with Epephone. Almost the same product just cheaper production costs. Like you said. They come with OS X only and the customer then can upgrade to additional software and hardware.

Use (if you can) older case designs to further reduce production costs. Who wouldn't buy a G5 in a G4 case to save some money. They could also experiment with offerings, pricing and all kinds of market research. Without directly having the apple brand blemished.

What do you think?
post #120 of 159
Oh, whatever. Why dont you go watch this and hopefully by the time you finish new G5's will be here.

BTW, Apple's price comparisson is out of whack right now because everything is near the end of the lifecycle.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Justifying Higher Mac Prices