Originally Posted by imGayForSteveJobs
Here comes the "But I don't want cheap hardware" argument. Apple PC's use the same hardware, intel processors, nvidia graphics.. Now if they could only fix those display problems...
That is nonsense. First, many of the components in Macs are proprietary - the power supply, motherboard, case, for example, as well as (of course) the OS. Second, many of the components are NOT the same ones that cheap PC vendors use. Both may use a 100 mfd capacitor, but the specs and quality on one could be far different.
The proof is in the pudding. EVERY survey I've ever seen done by PC magazines, Mac magazines, general business magazines, and consumer magazines shows the Mac to have lower DOA rates, higher customer satisfaction rates, and lower problem rates than ANY PC brand. That pretty effectively disproves your argument.
Originally Posted by eVolut
Me too, I don't believe the iSuppli cost estimates are correct.
A few checks:
- $46 for a 120Gb drive??? Even I, buying only one, would think this is a bad deal. I can buy an external 2.5" 320Gb WD drive for $65! That includes the enclosure and this is a retail price! So, come on, if Apple had to pay $46 for a bare 120Gb drive, while buying 100,000+ units, they would have fired their procurement negotiator a long time ago! I would think Apple pays no more than 1/2 that price.
While you are generally correct (I can buy a Seagate 120 GB drive for $37.50 including shipping (pricewatch.com), I don't think there's any way the figure is 1/2. Consumer prices from discount places aren't that far from high volume prices. In fact, when things are in oversupply, the contract prices are sometimes even higher than the consumer prices (since the consumer is buying overstocks while the OEM has to commit to a certain volume to ensure a supply). This happened with RAM a few years back.
Originally Posted by filburt
I wonder why Apple chose to use notebook components, especially the hard disk. It's not like Mac mini needs to be that small. Make it a bit larger, like Time Capsule and AEBS are and use cheaper desktop components to bring the price down and/or increase margin.
Because Apple chose to make size a feature. Go start your own computer company and do it your way.
Originally Posted by ljocampo
You imply that since Apple uses the same hardware parts
in their computers, that some how it should make them equal, in price and performance, to generic PCs. That's pure hogwash. If this was remotely true, there wouldn't be the famous brand loyalty for you trolls to enjoy. Apple makes better computers using generic parts, yes, but with quality in software and hardware design. Apple computers are the envy of the computer market, even if the MS trolls are in denial.
I'm not a fanboy to Apple Inc. I AM a fanboy to their computers. Plain & Simple. They can charge what the market will bear. I'll be buying, still.
Exactly. The entire exercise is irrelevant. As a user, I look at a computer and decide if I want to pay the listed price. If the price is too high, I don't buy it. I don't really care what it costs the vendor to make it. If Apple can figure out a way to grow an orchard of trees and pick their computers off the tree when they're ripe with zero manufacturing cost but the price doesn't change, it's meaningless. Either the price they're asking is OK or it isn't.
Originally Posted by mrochester
Yeah this really bugs me too. It's funny the number of people who said that auto-focus cameras and video were so not needed on the iPhone, yet they were all falling over themselves to buy the 3GS when it came out to have an auto-focus camera and video. It cracks me up that whatever product Apple currently sells is the absolute pinnacle of excellence, with all the features that anyone would ever need, at a price that's perfectly justifiable. This view then conveniently changes as soon as Apple announces their next product. I've posted in and observed the AppleInsider forum for a long while now, and it's truely like watching a herd of sheep following each other around. It's sad really, as it's like these people simply don't have a mind of their own.
You're making things up. No one said that video wouldn't be useful or that an autofocus camera wouldn't be useful. Just that it wasn't the end of the world that they weren't included in earlier versions. iPhone sales proved that to be the case.
You are obviously clueless about the design of a product. There are tradeoffs. Apple decided that they were going to make the iPhone 12 mm thick and sell at a certain price. That limits their options. At the time, there were no >2 MP autofocus cameras capable of doing video which fit into that form factor. (feel free to name one. Sure, those features were available in some fat phones, but they wouldn't work with Apple's design because of the thickness). As time goes on, technology improves and Apple is able to add more features within the scope of the compromises they have to make. That doesn't mean a 10 MP autofocus HD camera wouldn't have been nice in the original iPhone - it just wasn't possible.
That's not fanboyism, it's reality. The people you are labeling 'fanboys' are simply those who understand the reality of how design compromises work. You, OTOH, seem to think that "I want it and it's not available from Apple" means that Apple is intentionally crippling something.
Originally Posted by sequitur
Those are direct costs. There are indirect costs, too. Equipment and plant amortizement, overhead, staff salaries, advertising, etc.
What I don't like, and I've bellyached about in other threads is the high cost of memory. Apple pays $10 for a GB, but if you opt for 4 GB's, the charge is $150 (plus that original $10 for the first GB)). That's actually $160. If Apple pays $40 (which I doubt), that's 300% profit.
That's misleading - VERY misleading. For example, people have been complaining about Apple's price for the 8 GB upgrades on MacBook Pros ($1000). Those are very expensive DIMMs. Arguing that RAM should cost $10 per GB is obviously wrong in that case. Similarly, 2 GB DIMMs are more expensive per GB than 1 GB DIMMS (usually).
Originally Posted by fmaxwell
You're mistaking the markings on a few of the major VLSI chips as somehow conveying all that makes up a computer. And you are very wrong.
Computer manufacturers can cut corners by using fewer, and lower quality, bypass and filter capacitors. They can use lower-quality analog parts (opamps, power amps, etc.) on their sound systems. They can use low-cost, and less reliable, cheap connectors for everything from the expansion slots to the headphone output jacks.
They can elect to use low-end, poor quality fans or even fans with bushings rather than high-quality bearings. They can use two or three temperature sensors rather than the couple of dozen found in a Mac Pro. They can save money by not having thermal engineers involved, and, instead, by blasting fans at full speed. They can use undersized heatsinks and high-speed fans rather than taking the more expensive route of using large, high-end heatsinks and large, low-RPM, quiet fans. Ever wonder why Apple Mac Pros, Minis, and iMacs are so much quieter than other brands of desktop computers?
They can use a cheap plastic case with poor shielding and limited resistance to flex. They can make motherboards with fewer layers that radiate more EMI and/or are more susceptible to instability from external EMI. They can use non-ECC RAM in their tower systems. They can choose not to have riser boards for RAM, making upgrades harder and cooling less effective.
See, I'm an engineer. I know that Sun, Apple, Acer, and MSI all buy CPUs from Intel. That doesn't mean that all of the systems are of equal quality.
Which is exactly why Apple wins every comparison on DOA rates, computer quality, need for repair, customer satisfaction, and so on. While they might use the same CPU as others (or, maybe they don't - we don't know what their internal specs are for reject rates, for example), they are clearly offering a superior product. The proof is in the pudding.
Originally Posted by mrochester
That's fine, but the technology WAS there 2 years ago, Apple just deliberately missed it out to gauge money later on when it introduced an amazing 3.2mp auto-focus camera. There's a difference between not selling technology because it's not available, and not selling it simply because you want to introduce it as an 'amazing' new feature later on. Apple is supposed to be about making revolutionary products (which the 2G iPhone was, and OS 2.0 was) but Apple have since just tacked on some minor hardware and software changes. It certainly seems as if Apple didn't put much effort into the 3GS, and some of the parts they tossed into it have been available for years anyway.
Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.