or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 35

post #1361 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash


In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....

Maybe we are simply hoping Apple will eventually take notice. Not all troops are happy with the Mac desktop product selection. I see nothing wrong with presenting ideas and saying what we want in a desktop computer. Anyone who is not interest should skip this thread. It's not the longest thread. The Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD thread is much longer, having gone on since creation of the universe, almost.

I gave my opinion on the current iMacs not long ago. In my opinion, Apple has been upgrading it to more of a prosumer Mac, from G3 to G4 to G5 and now the current Intel chip. Yet many of us don't want the iMac. The affluent buy the Mac Pro while the rest of us unhappy souls buy from eBay.

post #1362 of 1658
Apple is stuck in all in one land, All of its products suffer because of another Mac. Mini is given crapo graphics for sake of iMac, iMac is given no pci slot or upgrade path for PowerMac and PowerMac is priced so high only the rich can get one. Apple is doing a great job running off folks. Ran me off, I bought a Pc that now has a Tv tuner card,Sound card, plays games great and cost....half of what iMac does. Only 1 machine can compete with this PC and thats Powermac but it cost 3 times what my Pc did. See yah Apple.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #1363 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora


. . . I bought a Pc that now has a Tv tuner card,Sound card, plays games great and cost....half of what iMac does. Only 1 machine can compete with this PC and thats Powermac but it cost 3 times what my Pc did. See yah Apple.


I understand your pain. Just a little joke there. Sorry.

Personally, I'd have a real problem switching to Windows. My wife use Windows at work, and we have a Dell in the basement, provided by courtesy of her employer. I help her keep things running, Ugh.

I'd rather buy a used G5 Power Mac than run Windows. By the time everything is Universal in a couple years, the Intel Macs will be on eBay at a reasonable price. I'd like to pick up the current Mac Pro at half the price. Way more than I need, but if Apple doesn't have what I want, a Mac Pro will do.

post #1364 of 1658
Quote:
All of its products suffer because of another Mac.

Its called product differentiation. Most every business does it.

Quote:
Mini is given crapo graphics for sake of iMac

The mini uses integrated graphics because over 60% of the PC market uses it.

Quote:
Apple is doing a great job running off folks. Ran me off

Is that the result when you've sold more computers, made more money, and have a higher stock price than you've ever had before?

Quote:
Only 1 machine can compete with this PC and thats Powermac but it cost 3 times what my Pc did. See yah Apple

Soooo.....one of those $399 jobs from Dell is better than the entire Mac lineup except for the MacPro?

Quote:
I bought a Pc that now has a Tv tuner card,Sound card, plays games great and cost....half of what iMac does.

That's why its great to have a choice.

Which computer did you buy? I'm always open to a better deal than these over priced under functional Mac's. Especially computers from companies that are barely profitable if profitable at all, whose stock is stagnant, and has break even margins. Makes me feel like they aren't getting over on me.
post #1365 of 1658
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with presenting ideas and saying what we want in a desktop computer. Anyone who is not interest should skip this thread. It's not the longest thread.

Right. Complaints about the thread being long are silly. Ars Technica, in their Macintoshian Achaia forum, has some that are 5000 posts.

I'd rather have it all here than 18 different new threads all speculating about the same thing.

Thread will not be locked, at least not by me, ever.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1366 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

No they are not. The 2.66 and 2.93 Conroe is more expensive than all Merom choices.

The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249
2.66 Ghz Conroe at $1699
2.93 Ghz Conroe at $2499

They need to sit between the iMac and MacPro.

I think TenoBell seems to hit it in the sweet spot here.

Having 2gb of ram in a box like this would be a good for just about anybody in the design/webdesign/creative space. And when pricing peeks into the MacPro line, the specialty areas such as video/3D/production are already covered. That's small business up to large agency-sized places.

Time a product release like this between Vista, Leopard and the upcoming CS3 release and Apple might spark a good initial product run.

I'm holding out for a MacPro for my next purchase since I want want to invest in a good machine but it's taking some time. Figure that the dual/quad core options will affect pricing and other options by the time I get one. I'd be a dead ringer for a mid-range Conroe xMac though.
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
post #1367 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbanshee


. . . Time a product release like this between Vista, Leopard and the upcoming CS3 release and Apple might spark a good initial product run.

But what would a bunch of old fogeys want with an xMac? According to an article in the Register today, half of us are 55 and older! Maybe now Apple's desktop strategy is making a little bit of sense. There are the pros and old folks buying desktops. Maybe iMacs sell well into retirement centers? Man, can you imagine what a 24 inch iMac would look like in 640 X 480 resolution? It would be great! Job's strategy finally revealed.

The MacBook and MacBook Pro are for the younger crowd, the other half of Apple's customer base, with good eyesight.

post #1368 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

No they are not. The 2.66 and 2.93 Conroe is more expensive than all Merom choices.

The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249
2.66 Ghz Conroe at $1699
2.93 Ghz Conroe at $2499

They need to sit between the iMac and MacPro.

Works for me. I'd buy one tomorrow if such a machine existed.
post #1369 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy


But what would a bunch of old fogeys want with an xMac? According to an article in the Register today, half of us are 55 and older!

I apologize if I've offended some here who are over 55. Hopefully everyone here will reach 55 and way beyond, so in a way I was poking fun at all of us. Currently, I'm about 20 years from age 55, but I intend to be respectful to those of all ages, whether 10 or 100. A few years back I enjoyed reading and exchanging thoughts with a 13 year old Mac enthusiast.

BTW, nobody complained. My post just bothered me a little.

post #1370 of 1658
I'm over 55 (62 actually) and use a 20 G5 iMac at home. In the office I use a G4 1.5 PB attached to a 23" display. If I was to buy another Mac in the near future it would be a mid level headless that could work with the 23" display and be significantly faster than the PB. I don't want a Mac Pro - the bloody tower is too big for my needs.

The other thing that comes to mind is all of the Mac mini buyers that went with the mini to give macs a try. Now they want something more, but have no desire to pay for a Mac Pro. Their only choice right now is the iMac line, which might be OK if they don't have a display they like.

Apple does have a hole in their lineup and it's one that could generate very good gross margins. Pity.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #1371 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).

Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.

What on earth are you talking about?! The Performa 450 was the consumer version of the LC III. It was discontinued in 1993, and it cost $1800! The thing had a 25 MHz 68030 and wouldn't have even been able to run the Mac OS in 1998.

I remember the launch of the original iMac quite well, and there were no cheaper Macs on the market, and hadn't been in recent history, save some by then discontinued UMAX clones. That was part of why that machine was so compelling to so many people despite being extremely crippled - no one had ever seen a machine that cheap from Apple before. It was an entry-level machine, all right, and was extremely limited in what it could do (no high-speed bus, and no way to add one!), but for a Mac it was cheap, cheap, cheap.

The low-end desktop in May 1998 immediately before the iMac's announcement would have been the low-end Power Macintosh G3, IIRC. It would have been around $2000. A little earlier, the Power Mac 65xx started at $1800, but they were already gone by the time the iMac showed up, so this kind of lets the air out of your argument, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Yes, they replaced a $750 with a $1299 one. And it was more popular. Which means price isn't everything nor is Apple required to compete in the entry level market at entry level prices.

They added a new $1299 machine below the $2000 one. It "replaced" an $1800 machine, which had been discontinued for a few months already. And surprisingly enough, it was popular. So maybe price actually is kind of important (imagine that).
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1372 of 1658
According to MacTracker, vinea is correct. The Performa 450 was the consumer version of the LCIII and sold for $750.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1373 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

According to MacTracker, vinea is correct. The Performa 450 was the consumer version of the LCIII and sold for $750.

Yah, I looked it up on one of the mac history sites. I was a mac owner back then but heck I don't remember the pricing off the top of my head. Other than "man this isn't cheap".

Hmmm...thinking about it I think I had an Amiga 2000 with a Emplant around that timeframe and not a Mac.

Vinea
post #1374 of 1658
MacTracker is using apple-history.com for its source, and apple-history.com does claim it was $750. However, everymac.com says it was $1800. Lowendmac.com claims it was $1350! Obviously, some accuracy has been lost to the mists of time. How to settle this dispute? Well fortunately, there's a very handy service called Expanded Academic ASAP (Infotrac) that lets us search through full-text versions of old magazine articles, so we can see what was written about the Performa 450 at a time when it was actually a new Mac model instead of 13 years later. I did a little search, and here's what I found:

Ito, Russell. "Compact and colorful." MacUser v9.n4 (April 1993): pp100(6).
Quote:
The $1,349 Mac LC III is an equal or better value than the Color Classic and much better than the LC II; it has a faster 25-MHz 68030 processor, a 32-bit-wide data bus and room for up to 36Mbytes of RAM.

Ah, so the LC III, which the Performa 450 is based on, cost $1349. That explains lowendmac.com's claim. Now let's see if we can find the price of the actual Performa 450 itself:

Ito, Russell. "New on the menu." MacUser v9.n6 (June 1993): pp33(1).
Quote:
The Performa 450, which is expected to sell for about $1,799, is a repackaged LC III, so it's twice as fast as the other 400-series Performas. The 450 comes configured as a 4/120 model, with support for 8-bit color. Unlike its siblings, the 450 can have nearly quadruple the amount of RAM (a maximum of 36 megabytes instead of 10) and double the video bit depth.

Expected to sell for about $1799. Not definite, but getting closer.

Swartz, Jon. "Apple revamping Performa line, adding new models." MacWEEK v7.n15 (April 12, 1993): pp13(1).
Quote:
Performa 450, priced at $1,799, is based on a 25-MHz '030 and comes with 4 Mbytes of RAM, expandable to 36 Mbytes, and a 120-Mbyte hard drive.

Aha! Here we have a definite, absolute statement on the price of the Performa 450, in April 1993 just as the model was coming out. $1,799. So there you have it. I suspect that what happened was that the price on apple-history.com was a typo, and they left the 1 out of a price that they intended to put as $1750. It still would have been off by $49, but it's a lot closer than $750 is.

And, of course, this price is in 1993, the introduction date of the Performa 450. In 1998, it would probably have cost more like $15 on eBay. But then again, with a 25 MHz 68030, 4 MB of RAM, and a 120 MB hard drive, it probably would have been about as useful in 1998 as it would be today. To the best of my knowledge, the first shipping Mac OS machine that cost under $1000 was made by UMAX during the clone era. Around the time the iMac was released, there was no Mac model shipping that was as cheap, or even in the neighborhood. I'm sure that the iMac probably wasn't cheap compared to Dell (what Mac model ever has been?), but it was extremely dirt cheap compared to any other Mac model available in the summer of 1998.

edit: I bet you'd like some sources to back up that last sentence of mine. Here you go:

Rothenburg, Matthew. "News: Jobs unveils consumer iMac." MacWEEK v12.n18 (May 11, 1998): pp99(1).
Quote:
"I am incredibly thrilled to tell you that Apple is getting back into the consumer market," interim Apple CEO Steve Jobs said at this morning's news conference, where he unveiled the company's new iMac consumer model.

Getting back into the consumer market. Because they had no consumer offerings at the time.

"The iMac Cometh." Macworld v15.n7 (July 1998): pp17(1).
Quote:
Retro is in, and Steve Jobs knows it. He's reached into Apple's past in hopes of blazing a trail back into the hearts of consumers, with a daring new entry-level Macintosh: the iMac. Two years ago, Apple quietly exited the low-cost computing market, citing an inability to compete with manufacturers of Windows-based PCs on price and time-to-market issues. Since that time, the company downsized and, according to interim CEO Jobs, became much more efficient and able to deliver new products faster. As a result, Jobs says, Apple is ready to reenter the consumer market with a dramatic new Macintosh that relies as much on nostalgia as it does on bold technology and design. At $1,299, the iMac offers leading-edge capabilities, a breathtaking design, and a bargain price.

By the way, here's an amusing letter to the editor I found in the May 25, 1998 edition of MacWEEK. Sound like anyone we know?

Quote:
Wrong product, price

The iMac isn't cheap enough to attract customers away from cheap PCs, and it's only different enough from a normal Mac to hurt other Mac sales.

Consider a company that uses a mixture of Macs for various purposes: Why use anything other than an iMac for less demanding work? Silicon Graphics Inc. tried selling a cheap-but-not-cheap-enough, fast computer (the O2), hoping to grab sales away from Apple and Wintel; all they did was cannibalize their own premium sales. Now companies that used to use $50,000 workstations use $15,000 workstations, while Mac and PC shops ignore them.

iMac should be cheaper or less Mac-like.

Boy, this prediction sure turned out to be true, didn't it. Yep, by being cheap, the iMac sure did cannibalize the rest of the Mac lineup and cause the death of Apple...
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1375 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

And, of course, this price is in 1993, the introduction date of the Performa 450.

As you say...those sources are from 1993 not 1998. But my bad if Apple History is incorrect. I should have looked for a second reference.

Quote:
I'm sure that the iMac probably wasn't cheap compared to Dell (what Mac model ever has been?), but it was extremely dirt cheap compared to any other Mac model available in the summer of 1998.

Dirt cheap is not $1299 in 1998. Dirt cheap in 1998 is $499. Again, that's like saying that a Porsche Boxster is "dirt cheap" at $45K...

Quote:
Boy, this prediction sure turned out to be true, didn't it. Yep, by being cheap, the iMac sure did cannibalize the rest of the Mac lineup and cause the death of Apple...

$1299 in 1998 is $1500 in 2005 dollars. Mkay...I have no issue with a consumer mac model selling for $1499 given that's what they are selling for. The Power Macs of the era started around $1500 which is a tad lower than today's Mac Pros but not by that much.

Vinea
post #1376 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

As you say...those sources are from 1993 not 1998. But my bad if Apple History is incorrect. I should have looked for a second reference.

Apple History also says that the model was introduced in 1993. The thing it gets wrong is the price.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure that the iMac probably wasn't cheap compared to Dell (what Mac model ever has been?), but it was extremely dirt cheap compared to any other Mac model available in the summer of 1998.

Dirt cheap is not $1299 in 1998. Dirt cheap in 1998 is $499. Again, that's like saying that a Porsche Boxster is "dirt cheap" at $45K...

Read what I said again. The iMac was dirt cheap compared to any other Mac model available in the summer of 1998. I even prefaced it with "I'm sure that the iMac probably wasn't cheap compared to Dell (what Mac model ever has been?)"

At the time the iMac was announced, the cheapest Mac was $2000. By the time the iMac actually shipped, that model had been discontinued and the cheapest non-iMac desktop from Apple was $2400! Compared to those prices, the iMac was indeed dirt cheap.

Quote:
$1299 in 1998 is $1500 in 2005 dollars. Mkay...I have no issue with a consumer mac model selling for $1499 given that's what they are selling for. The Power Macs of the era started around $1500 which is a tad lower than today's Mac Pros but not by that much.

The original Mac 128K cost $2500 in 1984 dollars. How much would that be in 2005 dollars? Does that mean it would be a good idea to have the consumer line start at over 3 grand in 2005?

This has already been addressed. Snoopy said: "In 1998 iMacs were priced as an entry level computer for the masses. What you are missing is that computer prices have tumbled considerably, far more than the dollar amount would indicated because of inflation." Yeah, in 1998, you could get a PC for $500. But you'd probably have to sign up for 2 years service with AOL or MSN, or maybe you'd even need to run some software that would periodically show you ads. Don't you remember all that crap that went on in the dot-com bubble days? It was like the "free" cell phones of today - subsidized by something else you have to pay for. Bottom line - in 1998, $1300 was an entry-level price for a computer. Maybe not the absolute rock bottom, but still entry-level. In 2005, it's not, because the prices of computers have decreased faster than inflation would make them increase.

Oh, and the Power Mac line didn't start at $1500 in 1998. It was $2000, and then $2400. You're looking at the G3 All-In-One, which in addition to being an AIO (albeit with PCI slots), was only available to schools - not consumers!
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1377 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Read what I said again. The iMac was dirt cheap compared to any other Mac model available in the summer of 1998. I even prefaced it with "I'm sure that the iMac probably wasn't cheap compared to Dell (what Mac model ever has been?)"

As I said...that's like saying a Porsche is cheap at $45K. It is inexpensive in comparison to their product line, not to the general market. Snoopy's argument is that Apple has competed in the consumer entry market against the likes of Dell in the past and that the original iMac was inexpensive.

It was not. It doesn't matter how much less it is in comparison to other Mac models it still wasn't inexpensive.

Quote:
The original Mac 128K cost $2500 in 1984 dollars. How much would that be in 2005 dollars? Does that mean it would be a good idea to have the consumer line start at over 3 grand in 2005?

Nope. But that still doesn't change the fact that the iMac was never a very affordable machine by the masses.

Quote:
This has already been addressed. Snoopy said: "In 1998 iMacs were priced as an entry level computer for the masses. What you are missing is that computer prices have tumbled considerably, far more than the dollar amount would indicated because of inflation.

It wasn't entry level except in the same sense that a Boxster is "entry level". Apple has always been a premium brand. If it makes you happier to say that Apple is a mid-grade premium brand like Acura that's fine but the RSX at $23K isn't "entry level" either.

Quote:
Yeah, in 1998, you could get a PC for $500. But you'd probably have to sign up for 2 years service with AOL or MSN, or maybe you'd even need to run some software that would periodically show you ads.

I don't recall if that was part of the deal eith eMachines but Packard Bell didn't do that. I also recall that the ones that required 2 year service were free...not $500.

Quote:
Bottom line - in 1998, $1300 was an entry-level price for a computer. Maybe not the absolute rock bottom, but still entry-level. In 2005, it's not, because the prices of computers have decreased faster than inflation would make them increase.

Mmm...you'll have to prove that. I looked around and in 1999 Dell's Precision 210 workstation was only $1668. For the entry level a year ealier to be in the $1300 range is unlikely.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_54717390

Quote:
Oh, and the Power Mac line didn't start at $1500 in 1998. It was $2000, and then $2400. You're looking at the G3 All-In-One, which in addition to being an AIO (albeit with PCI slots), was only available to schools - not consumers!

The Blue and White started in the $1500 range in Jan 1999. The G3 AIO that you DQ'd for being edu was $1500 but the Power Mac 6500 started at $1799. The Power Mac 5400 LC and Power Mac 4400 were discontinued sometime in 1998.

There were a plethora of Power Macs during that time period. Some under $2K. Was there a specific model for $1500 in 1998 excluding the edu market? I can't show that but I can show there were models in the general price range from the history sites both before and after 1998.

Vinea
post #1378 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

As I said...that's like saying a Porsche is cheap at $45K. It is inexpensive in comparison to their product line, not to the general market. Snoopy's argument is that Apple has competed in the consumer entry market against the likes of Dell in the past and that the original iMac was inexpensive.

As I said... it's not. I said it was dirt cheap for a Mac, which it was. If the next model up for Porsche was $100,000, then $45K would be pretty damn cheap for a Porsche.

Now, let's see if that's actually the case (that $1,300 was not affordable for a computer in 1998).

Quote:
It was not. It doesn't matter how much less it is in comparison to other Mac models it still wasn't inexpensive.

Nope. But that still doesn't change the fact that the iMac was never a very affordable machine by the masses.

Let's see what people at the time thought, without going through the 2005 filter.

"PC Finalist: Apple iMac." PC Magazine (Dec 15, 1998): p166(1).

Quote:
Priced under $1,300 at introduction, the iMac is an inexpensive machine that nonetheless redefines traditional concepts of PC aesthetics and ease of use.

"The Lazarus effect." PC Week 15.51 (Dec 21, 1998): p22(1).

Quote:
Meanwhile, the iMac's trendy, retro appearance and $1,299 price caught the eye of consumers and Wall Street alike, boosting Apple stock to new heights and drawing in a bevy of new developers for the operating system.

Pope, Tom. "Eyeing the iMac." PC Magazine (Nov 15, 1998): p42(1).

Quote:
Price is another pleasing feature of the iMac. For $1,300 (street price) you get a complete computer that can run a large variety of home and office software. It comes with a 233-MHz PowerPC 750 (G3) processor, a good-size 4GB hard disk, 32MB of memory, a fast CD-ROM drive, a 56-Kbps modem, and an Ethernet network connection. The machine also has built-in surround-sound stereo speakers and a 15-inch flicker-free monitor, and it comes with 2MB of memory for its ATI 3-D Rage IIC graphics processor.

Breeden, John II. "Apple's iMac rates high on cool scale but has built-in limitations." Government Computer News (Nov 9, 1998): p32(1).

Quote:
Because of the iMac's entry-level price, I expected poor graphics. But I got a big surprise: a built-in Rage IIc 2-D/3-D graphics chip from All Technologies Inc. of Thornhill. Ontario, and 2M of synchronous graphics RAM.

Campbell, Scott. "Apple's new iMac living up to hype." Computer Reseller News 805 (August 31, 1998): p63.

Quote:
The iMac, Apple's latest entry in the low-end consumer market and perhaps the first computer to vaguely resemble a warped egg, is an all-in-one system retailing for $1,299.

Jackson, David. "Apple's new crop." Time v151.n19 (May 18, 1998): pp70(1).

Quote:
Depending on your point of view, the translucent blue iMac computer introduced by Apple last week is either the coolest or the weirdest-looking personal computer ever made. It's fast, it's cheap, and if you're looking for a cute little PC to go with one of those new Volkswagen Beetles, this is the one.

Walsh, Jeff. "Apple releases innovative design PC." InfoWorld v20.n19 (May 11, 1998): pp17(1).

Quote:
The analysts said the iMac, despite Apple not positioning it as a corporate box, is in line with the price/performance of sub-$1,000 PCs, due to extras that are included in the price, such as the monitor and Ethernet being built in.

During Jobs' product announcement it was revealed that the iMac outperformed the fastest PC machines on the market in benchmark tests, despite it being Apple's low-end offering.

Some things I'd like to say about these articles:

1. I found these articles doing a search on InfoTrac for articles containing the word "iMac" in the year 1998. I didn't use keywords like "iMac cheap" or "iMac inexpensive" or anything that would get me biased results.

2. I specifically excluded Mac magazines like MacWorld or MacWEEK, as pretty much every article from those publications mentions the inexpensiveness of the iMac.

3. Among all the articles I looked at, I found only one complaining about the iMac's price. Contrast that with all the articles saying the contrary, which I've posted above.

Quote:
The Blue and White started in the $1500 range in Jan 1999.

Huh? I thought we were talking about 1998, when the iMac was introduced. The B&W was made after the iMac. It also didn't include a monitor. I'll agree that the B&W was a great machine, though, one for which Apple has no equivalent today.

Quote:
The G3 AIO that you DQ'd for being edu was $1500 but the Power Mac 6500 started at $1799.

The 6500 was discontinued in March 1998, several months before the release of the iMac, and half a year before the iMac actually shipped. (link)

Quote:
The Power Mac 5400 LC and Power Mac 4400 were discontinued sometime in 1998.

5400 LC - LC designated "edu" in Apple's old naming conventions. Everything after the LC III (the edu version of the Performa 450) with "LC" in the title was an edu machine. Besides that, I can't find a mention of that model anywhere other than Apple-History, which has questionable reliability. Everymac.com says all the Power Mac 5400s were edu-only and were all discontinued by March 1998 before the iMac was released. That jibes because the consumer versions of those machines were the Performa 5400 series, and they were all discontinued by December 1997. In addition to all of this, the 5xxx series were all-in-ones! The iMac was basically re-starting the consumer Performa 5xxx line, which had been dead for quite some time by the time the iMac shipped.

As for the 4400, it was discontinued in 1997. (linky linky)

Quote:
There were a plethora of Power Macs during that time period. Some under $2K.

All of them edu-only. The only Power Macs available to non-edu consumers were the Power Mac G3s. The marketing at the time was "Pro, Go, Whoa." "Pro" being Power Macintosh G3, "Go" being PowerBook, and "Whoa" being iMac.

Quote:
Was there a specific model for $1500 in 1998 excluding the edu market?

Nope. Also, was there a specific model for $1300 including the monitor, excluding the edu market? Not since the death of the clones in 1997, the UMAX SuperMac C500 line being the only Mac OS machines ever to go below $1000 until the 350 MHz iMac in October 1999.

Quote:
I can't show that but I can show there were models in the general price range from the history sites both before and after 1998.

Unfortunately, you're out of your league here. You admit you weren't following Apple at the time the iMac came out - I was, and I can assure you that there was nothing like it in its price range at the time it came out.

Why do you think Jobs would have admitted to not having a consumer offering at all before the iMac's release if it weren't true? Is it typical for CEOs to criticize their own companies baselessly? The fact: two years before the iMac came out, Apple quit selling consumer machines, leaving that market to the clones. After the death of the clones, there was nothing until the release of the iMac. Hence the re-entrance of Apple into the consumer market in 1998.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1379 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

As I said... it's not. I said it was dirt cheap for a Mac, which it was. If the next model up for Porsche was $100,000, then $45K would be pretty damn cheap for a Porsche.

Mmm...as it happens you pretty much go from Boxster to 911...which is a $100K car. I suppose you could do a Cayenne now but it is a SUV.

Quote:
Now, let's see if that's actually the case (that $1,300 was not affordable for a computer in 1998).

Well it was nice debating someone that could actually do some research for a change. I will conceed the battle but not the war.

I still contend that the current iMacs aren't much worse price wise than the original iMac. If $1,300 was affordable in 1998 then $999 is affordable in 2006. Likewise, I still believe that Apple should continue to concentrate on the laptop vs desktop markets in 2007 and seek to introduce new tablets and UMPCs over extending their desktop lines though a prosumer Mac Pro for around $1600-$1700 would be nice.

Vinea
post #1380 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Well it was nice debating someone that could actually do some research for a change. I will conceed the battle but not the war.

Wise decision.

Quote:
I still contend that the current iMacs aren't much worse price wise than the original iMac. If $1,300 was affordable in 1998 then $999 is affordable in 2006. Likewise, I still believe that Apple should continue to concentrate on the laptop vs desktop markets in 2007 and seek to introduce new tablets and UMPCs over extending their desktop lines though a prosumer Mac Pro for around $1600-$1700 would be nice.

I don't think that anyone is claiming that $999 isn't affordable, although it's certainly not low-end anymore. However, let's look at a few things.

You've been claiming that PCs could be had for under $500 in mid-1998 when the iMac debuted. However, all the articles I found mentioned "sub-$1000 PCs", not "sub-$500 PCs". You can actually see this in the last article I quoted in my previous post. However, here are a few more articles on the subject:

From around the time the iMac was announced, we have:

Brandt, Andrew and Robb, Joanne. "SUB-$1000 Bargains, 333-MHz Beasts." PC World v16.n5 (May 1998): pp227(3).

Quote:
What about these sub-$1000 PCs that you've heard so much about? Well, you'd better lower your expectations. Sub-$1000s use older technology to keep prices low--we're talking MMX processors, 2GB hard drives, and 14--or 15-inch monitors. Most of these systems are ill-equipped to make our Top 20 charts. However, two sub-$1000 PCs--without monitors, that is--from HP and IBM make this month's Top 10 Home PCs chart.

Sub-$1000 PCs were pretty much the bottom of the barrel in mid-1998. Are you wondering what those two PCs from HP and IBM on the Top 10 Home PCs chart were? So was I:

Silvius, Susan. "Top 10 Home PCs." PC World v16.n5 (May 1998): pp252(2).

Quote:
The HP Pavilion 3260 pops up at number four. Priced at $799 ($1198 with monitor), it's the least-expensive system ever on the budget chart. It's also by far the chart's slowest. Still, the price is astonishingly good for a Pentium-level computer, and the Pavilion's customized online support and system wizard make it easy to use.

Least-expensive ever, eh? And with a monitor, it's a whole $100 less than an iMac.

Quote:
Finally, the $999 IBM Aptiva E26 ($1348 with monitor) steals the last spot on the chart from its lower-end cousin, the Aptiva E16 (number four last month). An average performer for a budget computer, the E26 comes bundled with Lotus SmartSuite 97. Based on Advanced Micro Devices' K6-233 processor, this system is underpowered for video--or CPU-intensive applications like 3D games, but it's a great choice for managing your household finances or helping your kids write letters and do homework.

And this one costs more than the iMac with a monitor. The other three on the "budget" section of PC World's list had prices of $1829, $1769, and, in the case of the Gateway G5-233, it was "all for a modest $1499." Hmm, so even $1829 was still "budget" in 1998.

Of course, HP, IBM, Gateway, et al. were relatively reputable vendors. eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff. However, this article from half a year later, in December 1998 says this:

Graves, Lucas. "Welcome to The Land of the Free PC." MC Technology Marketing Intelligence 18.8 (August 1998): p36.

Quote:
We're calling it "The Land of the Free PC" but you might be tempted to refer to it as "Future Imperfect" Along with Yahoo's stock price and Dell's marketshare, PC prices have captured imaginations and a fair number of headlines over the last year. Yet the sub-$1,000 desktop computer, now morphing into the sub-S700 desktop computer, is no matter for idle amazement. A PC you can get for the price of a decent bicycle represents a fundamentally different kind of purchase than one that costs as much as a used car. As such, cheap PCs will leave a radically different industry in their wake--one in which world-class strategic marketing is more important than ever.

...

Like the Internet, the saga of the now-in-famous "sub-$1,000 PC" is one of those stories that generates volumes of ink and yet may still be under-hyped. Plummeting price points constitute without a doubt the most significant trend in the PC market today, and that's not likely to change over the next year. IntelliQuest's Michael Gale predicts that by next Christmas, on the eve of the year 2000, the industry could be contending with price tags at or below $500 for a reasonably well-equipped home computer system.

Now, you'll notice this article is from December 1998, quite a while after the iMac was announced. At the time this article was written, $700 PCs were just starting to come out - before that, they cost more than that - and the article indicates that $500 PCs still didn't exist in Dec. 1998, which again was later than the iMac, and that this publication expected them to show up about a year later.

So anyway. At the time the iMac was introduced, there were no $500 PCs, and sub-$1000 was the norm for cheap PCs without monitors, making the iMac quite competitive with even the low end of the PC range. You cannot deny that the general prices in the PC industry have plummeted since then - nowadays, you can get a tower for $450 - and from Dell, not some eMachines crap that never works right. So while $999 would have been very cheap in 1998, it is not anymore, even when taking inflation into account, because computer prices have dropped much faster than inflation has raised them. So let's look at the B&W G3, introduced somewhat later than the iMac in 1999. That machine was nicely expandable, and started at $1500. In 2005 dollars that would be about $1710, so due to the falling prices of the computer market, Apple should provide a tower in 2005 that is significantly cheaper than $1710 just to match what they had in 1998. In fact, due to the fact that prices have dropped far enough that the dollar amounts have decreased despite inflation, the price should actually be significantly cheaper than the $1500 price of the B&W G3, because what was normal in 1998 and 1999 is expensive now.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1381 of 1658
as apple continues to 'gadgetize' their consumer oriented products, i would expect the prices to keep falling - cool stuff and low prices (but not necessarily the lowest) is gadget-jukies are looking for...
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #1382 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Wise decision.

Mmkay...that could have been done with a little more grace.

Quote:
I don't think that anyone is claiming that $999 isn't affordable, although it's certainly not low-end anymore. However, let's look at a few things.

It is no more low end today than $1300 was in 1998.

Quote:
You've been claiming that PCs could be had for under $500 in mid-1998 when the iMac debuted. However, all the articles I found mentioned "sub-$1000 PCs", not "sub-$500 PCs". You can actually see this in the last article I quoted in my previous post. However, here are a few more articles on the subject:

Then perhaps you simply need to look for the two vendors I posted earlier:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_54285230

eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.

I was a bit vague on when in 1998 sub-$500 computers appeared as the original quoted source wasn't specific but we're talking fall of 1998 for the iMac so the time differential couldn't have been very large...and it wasn't. And frankly I hadn't expected $399 but there it is.

Quote:
Now, you'll notice this article is from December 1998, quite a while after the iMac was announced. At the time this article was written, $700 PCs were just starting to come out - before that, they cost more than that - and the article indicates that $500 PCs still didn't exist in Dec. 1998, which again was later than the iMac, and that this publication expected them to show up about a year later.

Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.

Quote:
So anyway. At the time the iMac was introduced, there were no $500 PCs, and sub-$1000 was the norm for cheap PCs without monitors, making the iMac quite competitive with even the low end of the PC range.

The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers. The only thing you've shown is that magazines need a bit of lead time to print articles and they are sometimes out of date with respect to current market conditions.

Quote:
You cannot deny that the general prices in the PC industry have plummeted since then - nowadays, you can get a tower for $450 - and from Dell, not some eMachines crap that never works right.

They plummeted in Q4 of 1998. eMachines apparently had a low rate of return. From the article above:

Quote:
In Q1'99, eMachines continued to report a dramatically low return rate of under four percent, less than half the industry average.

That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".

Quote:
So while $999 would have been very cheap in 1998, it is not anymore, even when taking inflation into account, because computer prices have dropped much faster than inflation has raised them.

Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.

Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-211426.html

They had introduced a $699 model in late May...the Packard Bell 550. AMD was starting to make its move on Intel. Apple introduced its model with full knowledge of where the bottom end of the PC market was heading and that the sub-$600 market.

Quote:
Packard Bell First To Crack Sub-$700 Barrier
[11:30AM] If the past eighteen months are any indication, the days of sub-$500 computers might be here sooner than you would have previously expected. After leading the wave of vendors who broke the sub-$1,000 price point in January 1997, Packard Bell today established a new low-cost category with the introduction of the first sub-$700 computer. The Packard Bell 500, housed in a mini-tower chassis, features a Cyrix 233-MHz MMX Enhanced MediaGX processor, 24MB RAM, 2.1GB hard drive, 24X CD-ROM drive, and 56-Kbps modem for $699. A $999 model, also announced today, ups the processor, RAM, and hard drive to 266-MHz, 48MB, and 4.3GB, respectively.

http://www.macobserver.com/archive/1998/may.shtml

Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.

Quote:
So let's look at the B&W G3, introduced somewhat later than the iMac in 1999. That machine was nicely expandable, and started at $1500. In 2005 dollars that would be about $1710, so due to the falling prices of the computer market, Apple should provide a tower in 2005 that is significantly cheaper than $1710 just to match what they had in 1998.

Perhaps they will if you consider $1499-$1699 significantly cheaper thant $1710. There's no reason that Apple should offer a cheap tower if the market values Macs higher.

Quote:
In fact, due to the fact that prices have dropped far enough that the dollar amounts have decreased despite inflation, the price should actually be significantly cheaper than the $1500 price of the B&W G3, because what was normal in 1998 and 1999 is expensive now.

Again no because Apple is branded as a higher end product that competes with other higher end brands like Sony, Toshiba, etc.

Sometimes a gracious acceptance of victory is better no?

Vinea
post #1383 of 1658
One thing that is interesting is that I used to credit Dell with the explosion in PC ownership but in reality it was eMachines and Packard Bell. 51% of eMachines sales in Q1 1999 were to new PC owners. $399-$499 was evidently the magic price point for widespread adoption.

Quote:
About 51 percent of Q1'99 eTower sales through consumer electronics retailers were to first-time PC buyers, compared to industry figures that were slightly above 25 percent during 1997 and most of 1998. These new 'first-time' buyers reported annual household incomes at 69 percent between $20,000 and $34,000, and 31 percent between $35,000 and $49,000, substantially below the $50,000+ household income levels reported by PC owners in 1997 and 1998 surveys.

The basis of my argument has been that Apple is shooting for the $50K+ households and not the $20K-$49K households. They price accordingly and there is no great need for Apple to compete in the entry level market.

Vinea
post #1384 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Soooo.....one of those $399 jobs from Dell is better than the entire Mac lineup except for the MacPro?
Doesn't have to be a 399 job, there are other price brackets in pcs too, just like macs

That's why its great to have a choice.
Ummmm...if you consider switching back to pc a choice, but if you want to use a mac, which I would assume everyone here wants to do, the choice is essentially non-existent.

Which computer did you buy? I'm always open to a better deal than these over priced under functional Mac's. Especially computers from companies that are barely profitable if profitable at all, whose stock is stagnant, and has break even margins. Makes me feel like they aren't getting over on me.
That may be true for THOSE companies but since apple ALREADY has a unique OS and a SMALL product line, why would that happen to them? These just sounds like ramblings now that's not logical, those companies have tons of other companies doing the same thing and offering the same OS, even if apple where to copy their strategies, which they can't without discontinuing everything they've already made, apple would STILL be different. You act like a single product line (mid range desktops) controls the entire company's fate and actions.

You want comparisions of decent computers? Fine (all prices in canadian dollars):

HP Pavilion A1640N - 959.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz
250GB SATA Hard Drive
2048MB DDR2 SDRAM (expandable up to 4GB)
Dual Layer 16X DVD+/-RW with Lightscribe
Integrated GMA 3000 256MB shared
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...73&catid=20217
Above computer in package with 22" widescreen lcd: 1399.99
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...52&catid=20215
The only thing the second 17" imac has on above package 2.0ghz vs 1.83ghz and integrated graphics, we all know how easy and cheap that is to put in, 199.99 gets me a 7600GT, can probably be found cheaper.


HP Pavilion M7690N - 1859.99
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6400 2.13GHz
500GB SATA Hard Drive
2048MB PC2-4200 DDR SDRAM
Dual Layer 16X DVD+/-RW with Lightscribe
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT Graphic with 256MB
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...13&catid=20217
Above configuration not offered in a package.


Now if apple offered something like that, maybe with similar specs, having only 2 pre configured models at let's say somewhere in 999-1199 for one and 1699-1899 for the other and offered a range of expansion options between them a-la mac pro, how would that sink their business? I bet tons of people on this site would buy something like that, I know I would. They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site, since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.

(remeber these are all canadian prices, I leave it up to whomever wants to do the conversions, but remember things are always cheaper than this in the USA)

I fail to see how and who that would hurt, most of the people that would buy that wouldn't buy an imac anyways, they probably own both a mac and pc like I'll probably end up doing if apple doesn't rectify this by the end of next summer. And even if imac sales slightly drop who cares, selling them something is better than selling them nothing at all and this could possibly sell them more products and grow their userbase.

This is where that 17" Cinema Display rumour(hopefully at 1400x900) could help selling people a pure apple solution and they should lower the 20" price as well, or replace both of them with ones that look metal but are plastic to get display prices down into a reasonable range (right now the 20" ACD is the worst deal apple offers imo).

If apple did that they wouldn't implode, and NO the cube and the mac mini are not the same thing and cannot be used as a sales judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #1385 of 1658
You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.
post #1386 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site

Apple is already heavily involved in the writing of GPU drivers for OS X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.

That's because the only GPU upgradeable mac is... the Mac Pro (yes, of course there's second-hand machines) which is bought more by professionals than gamers.

A decent range of well-selling lower-cost towers would surely help to boost the range of Mac-compatible graphics cards.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1387 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.

Wow for the whole company?! I really would have expected it to be much more :-/

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1388 of 1658
I gotta say, if I didn't know any better i'd think apple didn't really care about graphics. They don't have any real competitive solution to directx 10. They just finally got professional 3d cards in the last 2 years (quadro). They don't try and push ATI / Nvidia to produce 3rd party cards (mainly because they don't offer an option for upgrades in 80% of the machines). Also considering the recent move from real gpus to intel's gpus on lowend machines makes me raise an eye.

The only thing that keeps me thinking SJ may actually care about graphics is things like core animation (which is more aimed towards user feed back than real graphics), and..................... meh I can't think of anything else.

Apple really needs to address their graphics situation, before they get left in the dust because of directx 10. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.

I really hope apple has something in the fire to handle all these graphical concerns.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1389 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

It is no more low end today than $1300 was in 1998.

True. But it is a lot less low-end.

Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_54285230

eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.

Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:

Quote:
Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.

mentioned in the article (Your article says "eMachines shipped 300,000 eTower PCs in the first quarter of 1999, a huge increase from the over 150,000 units shipped in Q4'98." Doesn't mention the price of the 1998 machines - only the then-current machines of April 1999.), or this:
Quote:
The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers.

Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:

Quote:
That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".

Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time. Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.

Quote:
Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.

Oh, the articles mentioned Packard Bell. Here's one from PC World's Top 10 PCs list from April 1998:

Quote:
Brand-new this month is Packard Bell's Multimedia S606, in the fifth spot. The $1398 S606 is a beginner's PC with clear-cut setup instructions and a friendly interface. It's a little slower than IBM's Aptiva E16, but it does come with a ton of family software titles. Packard Bell, however, has a long history of poor customer service. Judging by our recent calls to tech support, the service seems to have improved, but be prepared to do your own troubleshooting.

$1398... and a "budget" PC. They may have made cheaper machines, but they clearly weren't worthy of mention, considering how your article here:

Quote:
Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-211426.html

talks about how they were going to achieve those low prices by using Cyrix's processors, not even real Intel or AMD chips.

http://www.macobserver.com/archive/1998/may.shtml

Quote:
Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.

The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Apple competed with those because it included a monitor, and adding a monitor to a sub-$1000 PC would get you a total that was not that much less than the iMac. Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1390 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.

Er...you mean like OpenGL 3.0 that ATI and nVidia are pushing? 2.1 is new so 3.0 is pretty far out but folks are talking about it.

http://www.gamedev.net/columns/event...cle.asp?id=233
post #1391 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

True. But it is a lot less low-end.

Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.

Quote:
Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:

Then here:

Quote:
Now, just in time for the upcoming holiday season, another industry pipsqueak is making noise--this time with a sub-$500 PC. Emachines, a startup backed by Korean computer giant TriGem Computer and display maker Korean Data Systems, will unveil a $399 computer--sans monitor--later this month. Sub-$1,000 machines have pushed average retail prices across the PC industry from about $1,600 to $1,200, but prices are still too high to attract droves of new buyers. Emachines believes its E-Tower, which will sell for less than $500 with a monitor, will appeal to the 55% of computerless households with annual incomes of $25,000 to $30,000. ''This price point will open up another 20% of the market,'' promises Emachines CEO Stephen A. Dukker.

http://www.businessweek.com/1998/41/b3599087.htm

And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?

Quote:
Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:

No need to assume. Just check.

Quote:
Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time.

So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.

So are you going to accept that you were incorrect as I did about the Performa price or do we need to run this into the ground like I have to with someone else that never admits mistakes?

Quote:
Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.

And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.

That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.

Quote:
The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing.

Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).

At the start of 1998 pricing was still in the $700-$800 level. By May the indicators were (from the articles I found) that folks understood that the market was heading for sub $500 sooner rather than later. By the end of 1998 it was reality.

Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly. It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.

Quote:
Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.

Low price for a Mac. Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).

You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.

Vinea
post #1392 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.

The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?

No need to assume. Just check.

Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.

Quote:
So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.

I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.

Quote:
And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.

That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.

What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?

And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"

But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?

Quote:
Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).

Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.

I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.

Quote:
Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly.

Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top-selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).

(edit: you'll probably want some sources for that. Couldn't document it completely, but these cover 1998 and some of 1999: link 1 link 2 link 3)

Quote:
It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.

That was exactly the intention of the machine.

Quote:
Low price for a Mac.

Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?

Quote:
Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).

So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.

Quote:
You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.

But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:

iMac a prosumer machine: vinea

iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world

But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1393 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.

Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.

Quote:
Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.

Then what was with the "assume" stuff? And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.

Quote:
I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.

The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.

Quote:
What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?

You didn't, others have. Its called context within a thread you're in. If I thought you had said that I wouldn't have used the phrase "that some have suggested" but instead "that you have suggested".

Quote:
And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"

The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.

Quote:
But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?

Strawman. First you advance the incorrect position that every machine not entry level is "prosumer" which is idiotic and second you are arguing against a position I've never advocated.

The mini is a small form factor computer that is also inexpensive (relative to the rest of the Mac lineup) but much more expensive than the entry level market as defined as "under $500".

Quote:
Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.

They were snapped up by folks that couldn't afford $700 for a computer. Not that they were ignorant as you insinuate. There were no other options at the time. Or are you saying that folks with less money are automatically dumb? Or that owning no computer is better than owning a Packard Bell or eMachine?

And you claim that they had problems but I recall reading Consumer Reports in that time period that recommended Packard Bell. Which I was duly skeptical but they weren't recommending it to me (someone in the industry) but to the general consumer based on...well, consumer reports...so some consumers certainly liked them. Also the article stated a low return rate for eMachines at least for the first few quarters. You don't have anything more than ancedotal rememberances that they sucked. They did suck but they also provided usable low cost computing to a demographic that had been underserved prior to hitting that $399 price point.

What is optimal for a higher market segment is not optimal for a lower market segment with different needs. That the machines were barebones and used cheap parts is what got it into the affordable range. That they would have a higher DOA rate would be expected but as long as that market segment felt they were being adequately served then they would be "reliable enough".

If they got twitchy when you added after market parts...well that's kinda the PC world of 1998 in general isn't it?

Quote:
I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.

That you don't care doesn't mean that they don't still exist and are selling computers in the European market. If you don't like those numbers then you can find a source that says they aren't #3.

Apple is niche compared to the worldwide market as it is predominantly US-centric. Notice that recent gains in the US market hasn't moved Apple's share a whole lot in the world wide share numbers?

Besides...so what if eMachines and Packard Bell were ultimately unsuccessful against Gateway, Dell and HP in the US market? What does that have to do with the contention that sub-$500 computers existed in 1998, that the 1997-1998 time period was when you saw the massive price drops until the bottom end was below $500 by Christmas of 1998? The same Christmas targetted by the $1300 iMac.

Quote:
Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).

Which is why eMachines outsold Apple in Q1 of 1999? Or eMachines in first full month of sales took the #4 slot behind the iMac who was #3 for the month of December? The iMacs position as #1 had slipped in December prior to the release of the multi-color iMacs and multiple SKUs.

http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/j...21/imacq4.html

Again, what does selling well in a higher market segment have anything to do with the contention that it wasn't designed to compete with machines in a lower market segment?

Quote:
That was exactly the intention of the machine.

So you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 one to gain share? As such, it seems a failure given that Apple lost market share position against makers of these cheap machines. Or perhaps you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 machine for the under $50K/year household income demographic? Which I would have to say it was likely a failure there as well.

On the other hand, if you contend as I do, that Apple tries to maximize margins over unit sales, the iMac was wonderful in achieving great margins with good volume. In which case it never competed against entry level machines but against other mid-level consumer level machines above both the sub-$1000 market (ie closer to $700 than $999) and the sub-$500 market. Where it was very successful as Apple's entry level machine.

That's the problem with the term "entry level". Again, Acura and Porsche have "entry level" cars. Neither occupy the same market segment as the Toyota Corrollas or even less expensive Scions and the like.

Quote:
So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.

That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.

Including monitor it is double the price of a low-end computer with possibly less performance. Therefore you're paying for branding, form-factor or both.

Quote:
But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:

This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.

Quote:
iMac a prosumer machine: vinea

iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world

But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.

We're arguing that you're incorrect in saying that Apple competed at the entry level (sub $500) market. There is and was a consumer segment above entry level. Arguing whether Apple is at the bottom end of the upper consumer segment or the top end of the middle consumer segment is semantics. Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.

The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.

So arguing that Apple occupied the bottom most (entry level) segment in 1998 is incorrect.

Arguing that not entry level = prosumer is just silly.

iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea

That's my position.

Vinea
post #1394 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?

No, saying that the Porsche Boxster is a low priced car for a Porsche is reasonably common. Saying that a Boxster is a low priced car in general is what is ridiculous.

Likewise you can find many articles that describe the Boxter as Porsche entry level car. Equating that with Porsche competes in the entry level market against brands like Scion is ridiculous.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...025_619161.htm

Here you go. "...entry level dream...relatively affordable price..."

I got taken to task in another thread for equating Apple to Porsche as the analogy isn't 100% accurate (given that no analogy is 100% I dunno why that's all that important but whatever). Apple does enjoy some of the higher margins and high profit per unit like Porsche does but also competes in that middle consumer market that Porsche arguably does not. Apple is more like Acrua in that regard.

Vinea
post #1395 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Then what was with the "assume" stuff?

Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.

Quote:
And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.

Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.

Quote:
The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong

Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998 (link).

Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. Pointing out that the price was a typo was just a little "icing on the cake." So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.

Quote:
but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.

Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong. I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"? Especially right after 1. I'd already pointed out the thing was from 1993, 2. your own source even said 1993 and not 1998, and 3. you still made me writing a frigging research paper before you'd accept that the thing was from 1993! Some really great research on your part, buddy.

I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post. You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore. I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.

The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.

This is wrong, though:

Quote:
Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.

because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1396 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.

If you equate consumer to family, then yes. However, the high end consumer category, which is par of the prosumer ranks is filled with fast and expandable desktop (not workstation) towers. Apple has no answer for this market except to tell them to upgrade to a high end workstation or downgrade to an iMac.



Quote:
The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.

It could be with a celeron-m 420 (see PC equivalent of G4). It should be noted that the Mac Mini is within about $30 of the cheapest dual core. It could be cheaper and better positioned if Apple had gone with a desktop hard drive. It'd still be way smaller than anything else. That Mini, as it sits now is cheaper than the Core Solo HP S7620N. I guess they must have moved up into the Porsche ranks too.

.
Quote:
That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.

Actually I remember Steve Jobs saying the exact opposite when he introduced the Mini.


Quote:
This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.

So, you're starting to figure out the market isn't so black and white.


Quote:
The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.

Which you are. Look up the 2005 MWSF keynote where Steve Jobs introduced the $499 Mac Mini.

Quote:
iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea

That's my position.

Vinea

So, in other words, Apple should cater to only you and people exactly like you?
post #1397 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.

Yeah like I already said in my inital post, you using two machines and one product line to determine the fate of an entire company is your bullet proof defence.

I knew you'd make some ridiculous responce like this.

Because and apple and hp are exactly the same and an apple mid tower would magically turn their profits into hp's.

The cinema displays, mbps, mb, mac pros, mac minis, ipods, and imacs would case to exist.
Steve Jobs would get a sex change operation turning into a woman that just flushes apple down the toliet, replacing the entire product lines with generic computers they can call GAZEBO followed by numbers and letters giving the consumer a nice unified understanding of their products.

It's at this point in time osx will be drop in favour of vista.

My god you're right....

APPLE RUN! A MID TOWER MEANS DEATH! DEATH I TELLS YOU!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #1398 of 1658
Conroe towers below the Mac Pros.

Easy.

We still arguing the toss on this one?

Lemon Bon Bon 8)

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1399 of 1658
just a month away to MWSF without Mac Tower or Mac Cube or (just a) Mac or MacBook mini?

what could be surprise in MWSF?

iPhone, iPod Video, iTV all old stories ...

i am looking forward some new Mac what ever it is!
MWSF -> new Mac!

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #1400 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.

A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.

Quote:
Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.

There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.

Quote:
Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998.

Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.

Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly. In any case the $750 looks to be incorrect.

Quote:
Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong.

No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.

Quote:
I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.

And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.

Quote:
Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"?

That was meant as a compliment. But whatever, retracted if it makes you feel better.

Quote:
I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post.

Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.

Quote:
You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore.

Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499. It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts. Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.

Quote:
I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.

Branding, form factors and the use of higher priced parts to achieve that form factor moves it above low end.

Quote:
The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.

You could have dropped this at any point. It takes two to argue.


Quote:
This is wrong, though:


because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.

Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.

Vinea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?