I never understand the comments about the "geeks". That about the same percentage as hardcore gamers which is about 5%. The fact that users want their multi function table to multi function doesn't make them a geek. Talking about a front mounted webcam, multitasking or even Flash doesn't make someone a geek. Its not like anyone has asked for watercooling with an Nvidia 295 GTX GPU option on the iPad.
This is 2010 any multi function device should be able to do more then one thing at a time. This was suppose to be the most innovative device of 2010 and it simply isn't even for the average Joe.
It is. Again, you're displaying a colossal lack of understanding when it comes to the Average Joe, despite your readiness to offer explanations about this class of consumer. In nearly every thread which deals with this subject your posts are misinformed.
It is. Again, you're displaying a colossal lack of understanding when it comes to the Average Joe, despite your readiness to offer explanations about this class of consumer. In nearly every thread which deals with this subject your posts are simply misinformed.
Whats funny Quadra is how you talk out of both sides of your mouth. First we get the posts that talk about how Apple only caters to the "premium" market and not everyone can afford to buy an Apple computer, which I would assume would be the average joe buying a netbook. Then in the next thread you talk about Apple somehow understanding what the average joe wants. Really the only joke here is you.
I would say the only person that is totally misinformed and out ot touch is you but its more like you slant the topic to suit your bias agenda. People may not like what I have to say at times but at least I don't flip flop twenty times a day.
So make up your mind is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
I had to chuckle my way through some of the commentary above. There is an enduring Minnesota aphorism that runs something like this, "please do not mistake my polite attention to your raving nonsense as anything other than good manners. It just wouldn't be very nice to point out that you are spouting complete drivel."
That sprang immediately to mind as I prepared to respond to some of the more ludicrous comments *smiles and nods*
Anyway, I had a nice conversation with my neighbor who came over to announce that they had purchased their first "Mac". After raving on a bit about the design and how easy it was to use and manage, and how nice the Apple Store people were, I politely interrupted the fan rave and asked "why" they chose to buy a Mac. After all they had been using PCs for at least the decade they had been my neighbors - in fact I had helped them out technically a time or two in that time when they had issues. Well, it turns out that they had been buying PCs every couple of years at about $600 to $1000 a pop. So they sat down and figured out that they had spent in excess of $2500 over the last 6 years to replace disfunctional computers. He had been talking to a coworker and she had owned her "Mac" for like 7 years and it was still going strong, having paid out around $1500 (edit note: for that Apple tax of course!) for it brand new. She reported other stuff to him, about never having a virus in that time, how easy it was to set-up and keep running, yada-yada-yada. He couldn't believe it. He and his wife went over to check it out and sure enough it was still running fast and smooth. They decided to trip over to the local Apple Store here (a couple of time actually) and ended up buying one. He told me that they figured out that for $1000 less than they had paid for three PCs, they could have a machine that "just worked".
Say what you will. This is an average person, a PC user, that switched. They are more in the larger mainstream of average consumers than most of the commenters here (judging from the general geekiness of the commentary). You cannot calculate simply the cost of the hardware, or the OS, or the software. You have to consider the TCO (total cost of ownership) over time, and the IPV (innate perceived value) for the user. Apple devices hold their value longer and better than most of their PC counterparts (as demonstrated by consistently higher resale value in places like eBay), their longer, lower maintenance useful life, (as reported: PC users trade out their PCs every 2-3 years on average, Apple users trade out theirs every 7 years on average) and the overall better quality of build, fit and finish. You can nitpick all you want (and lord knows a lot of you do), but in the final analysis, as the average consumer gets more and more familiar with Apple products, they will expand Apple's marketshare as a result. That is one of the purposes of the iPods and iPhone - it is a lower threshold experience that, if positive will build brand acceptance and preference for Apple. It is the reason behind the Apple retail stores. Loyalty of Apple users is legendary, and a constant source of koolaid, fanboi and RDF jokes and commentary. That's fine. The average consumer could care less than you imagine and they hold the purse-strings. Apple is fine with slowly, carefully and profitably building marketshare. The profits ensure they remain capitalized and viable and able to act on their vision.
So make up your mind is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
A company can still cater to the average consumer and still have a premium product within that market segment. They are not mutually exclusive. The iPhone is a premium product as it's more expensive than the typical handset and yet it's still catering to the average consumer, not focused on geeks, not focused soley on business users, but on the average consumer. Same things with Macs. If you want a hardcore gaming machine build your own or buy Alienware.
... is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
My original comment was not really clear about what I meant in regard to 'average Joe'. I was thinking that he was average only in that he did not care to understand the nuances of the OS but was not without the disposable income necessary to own an Apple product. So he is 'well off' average Joe.
I had to chuckle my way through some of the commentary above. There is an enduring Minnesota aphorism that runs something like this, "please do not mistake my polite attention to your raving nonsense as anything other than good manners. It just wouldn't be very nice to point out that you are spouting complete drivel."
Well said. The fundamental design principle of the Mac was "the computer for the rest of us." The funny part is, some of the "rest of us" turned out to be people like myself who didn't lack for technical expertise, but once they saw the Mac recognized it as the way a computer should work. After which ensued decades of technorati snorting about how the Mac was childish and not for real work and nobody who wanted to be taken seriously would own one. It was all about control, of course. Still is.
A company can still cater to the average consumer and still have a premium product within that market segment.
I understand that and so do you however that isn't Quadra rhetoric which is what I am calling him out on.
Also when talking about the "average joe" by now everyone with even a basic notebook has at least dual core. So its safe to say multitasking is not some geek required function. By now everyone pretty much expects their system to perform more then one task at a time. Having a built in webcam is also pretty standard these days.
Like I said I don't see anyone asking for an overclocked watercooled version of the iPad with a 295GTX with heatpipe sticking out of the back.
Also when talking about a mobile device that is also somewhat subjective. While some one consider any notebook a mobile device others would say only a PDA or smartphone is a true mobile device. So while the average joe most likely has lower expectations for his smartphone he isn't going to be as forgiving for a Tablet he might have spend 829.00 for before tax and accessories.
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
My original comment was not really clear about what I meant in regard to 'average Joe'. I was thinking that he was average only in that he did not care to understand the nuances of the OS but was not without the disposable income necessary to own an Apple product. So he is 'well off' average Joe.
Thats okay...lol. Thats better anyways we wouldn't want Quadra to get all upset thinking average consumers could afford to by elite Apple products. That would just mess up his entire year thinking he wasn't somehow special.
and microsoft does? vista was a mess, but i'm running windows 7 with 3 GB of RAM and a $60 video card and i can't find a game that i can't play on highest settings (crysis excluded, but i run that on high) i don't even have a core 2 duo, i'm using a pentium dual core (not netburst).
i was previously using my incredibly outdated nvidia 7000 series integrated graphics, which also worked just fine with aero.
for $1000, you get a laptop from apple with 2 GB of RAM. a $684 dell laptop comes with 6 GB of RAM.
now that microsoft has a competent OS, i see no reason to pay an apple hardware tax unless i graduate with an incredibly awesome job. i enjoy my macbook mainly for its excellent hardware quality, size, and battery life, but now i consider mac os to only really be better for software development and for not having any annoying activation junk. i bought my macbook when the best microsoft had to offer was windows xp.
nice pointless exaggeration.
I have an iMac 2.0 GHz from late 2007. First of the aluminum/Leopard iMacs. Just 1 GB of RAM. I've used both W7 Beta and RC. RC is coming to a close as my key code is old.
With only 1 GB of RAM, I can run W7 in either BootCamp or VirtualBox. Except for issues with W7 and Leopard in BootCamp, all is fine. Kinda slow, but fine. In BootCamp, I can run W7 and Ubuntu through VirtualBox. Ubuntu set at 384 MB.
When running VirtualBox in Leopard, W7 runs with just 512 MB. It isn't any slower than Leopard is with just 512 MB.
Windows 7 works better with my weak eyesight. Leopard has better speech. Neither OS is perfect. Both give me fair amounts of hourglasses or spinning wheels.
Ubuntu requires a lot of knowledge to use without issue. Windows 7 seems stable. Until Apple does something to make OS X easier to see, Windows 7 is a clear winner for me.
I understand that and so do you however that isn't Quadra rhetoric which is what I am calling him out on. .
Actually it *is* "Quadra rhetoric." Always has been. You'll find Average Consumers in all income brackets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
And yet . . . record Mac sales in a recession - and more sold every quarter, despite the availability and aggressive promotion of cheaper alternatives. Seems plenty of people see value in Macs and Apple products.
Someone earning $80,000+ a year might have a good education with an advanced degree, but they may still want (and this is often the case) hassle-free, attractive and usable tech. When it comes to tech, they might be *very* average.
I never realized you had such a narrow definition of the market, which in fact speaks more to stereotypes than reality.
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
Your definition of "more" excludes anything Apple has ever produces and will likely ever produce. Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition. Take the iPod, for example. It has less features to put on a spec sheet yet but the features they do have are more user friendly and more refined that the competition which was a key factor in making the iPod a raging success the world over. They also give the consumer more confidence in the product should there be a defect. This is has lead to the "halo effect" which is getting consumers to consider and eventually buy Macs because they feel they more usable functionality for their dollar.
Actually it *is* "Quadra rhetoric." Always has been. You'll find Average Consumers in all income brackets.
And yet . . . record Mac sales in a recession - and more sold every quarter. Seems plenty of people see value in Macs and Apple products.
Someone earning $80,000+ a year might have a good education with an advanced degree, but they may still want (and this is often the case) hassle-free, attractive and usable tech. When it comes to tech, they might be *very* average.
I never realized you had such a narrow definition of the market, which in fact speaks more to stereotypes than reality.
Actually my definintion was rather large, you don't seem me putting salary limits on whats considered average. Also what you consider hassle free and attractive is a subjective opinion, not fact in any way.
Maybe not every consumer wants a totally controlled OS, maybe some of us average consumers have the ability and understanding to customize our OS. Maybe we want the choice to pick what drivers we install.
You use the terms junkware and crapware which just makes you look like an idiot. Having a preference in one thing, making a choice is fine but lets not pretend your rhetoric isn't very clear.
You give opinion on products you have never even used and even worse bash them. And you have the nerve to call anyone here misinformed.
Your definition of "more" excludes anything Apple has ever produces and will likely ever produce. Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition. Take the iPod, for example. It has less features to put on a spec sheet yet but the features they do have are more user friendly and more refined that the competition which was a key factor in making the iPod a raging success the world over. They also give the consumer more confidence in the product should there be a defect. This is has lead to the "halo effect" which is getting consumers to consider and eventually buy Macs because they feel they more usable functionality for their dollar.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
If that list is the best you can do, Apple comes off looking mucho impressive.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard.
Except for Macs (iMacs, notebooks, the Air is limited by its cost), OS X (MS seems to thinks so), iPods, iPhones, iTunes, nearly everything they sell on the consumer market. Up in sales quarter after quarter, year over year, if not already well-established in sales over time (i.e., the iPod.)
If you're talking about pre-2001 or pre-2000, who gives a damn? Apple is the single most important and influential tech company of our time, and easily for the past decade. By the looks of it, this next decade is going to be huge for Apple. Apple's already got the mobile market (phones, slates/tablets) figured out for the next five years. Easy.
Well said. The fundamental design principle of the Mac was "the computer for the rest of us." The funny part is, some of the "rest of us" turned out to be people like myself who didn't lack for technical expertise, but once they saw the Mac recognized it as the way a computer should work. After which ensued decades of technorati snorting about how the Mac was childish and not for real work and nobody who wanted to be taken seriously would own one. It was all about control, of course. Still is.
While I am not fond of HP, by any means, I like their slogan, "The computer is personal again."
The computer for the rest of us, is fine, if you are willing to own one of the few offerings from Apple. Just because Steve Jobs thinks all computers should be all-in-one, doesn't make it so.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
Apple has always had only a few products. It's how they roll. Not all have been successes, but you can't call something a failure because you don't think the sales were as high as you think they should be.
In the case of the MBA it uses an SFF ULV C2D that is slower than other Macs processors yet costs more. This obviously isn't going to be the most popular machine they'll sell. I do know 4 people who have them but I know I lot more with other Mac notebooks. The 4 that I know have proper desktops at home, not laptops, which makes it a more natural fit for them. We've seen other vendors copy Apple's ultra-light using nearly identical parts so they must have seen a market for them, too.
I don't know anyone with a Mac mini but their are many posters here who love it, their are copycat vendors and even a mini-case with mini-ATX design that is slightly more expensive once you buy all the parts. It seems that is a success in it's own right. They've even made a server version, which makes sense after all the news on using it as such. I just wish they'd have gone a little further with dual-1Gb Ethernet ports and an SD card slot for restoring the OS, to name a couple.
And you can't say Macs haven't been successful when we see MS copying many aspects of Mac OS X, everything always being compared to Macs and Mac OS X, and the increase in sales outpacing the market.
Apple has always had only a few products. It's how they roll. Not all have been successes, but you can't call something a failure because you don't think the sales were as high as you think they should be.
In the case of the MBA it uses an SFF ULV C2D that is slower than other Macs processors yet costs more. This obviously isn't going to be the most popular machine they'll sell. I do know 4 people who have them but I know I lot more with other Mac notebooks. The 4 that I know have proper desktops at home, not laptops, which makes it a more natural fit for them. We've seen other vendors copy Apple's ultra-light using nearly identical parts so they must have seen a market for them, too.
I don't know anyone with a Mac mini but their are many posters here who love it, their are copycat vendors and even a mini-case with mini-ATX design that is slightly more expensive once you buy all the parts. It seems that is a success in it's own right. They've even made a server version, which makes sense after all the news on using it as such. I just wish they'd have gone a little further with dual-1Gb Ethernet ports and an SD card slot for restoring the OS, to name a couple.
And you can't say Macs haven't been successful when we see MS copying many aspects of Mac OS X, everything always being compared to Macs and Mac OS X, and the increase in sales outpacing the market.
It's as if extremehater goes blind and deaf the day before Apple releases their quarterly reports.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
Apple understands what people want out of a product, and makes that product. People SAY they want cheaper computers, but they really WANT computers that work well. Other manufacturers have listened to what the users said they wanted, but Apple provided what they actually DID want.
The brilliance is that Apple kept prices to a point where they are insanely profitable. Lowering the price would move more machines, but wouldn't increase Apple's profit. In fact, it could hurt the profit. Raising the price more would cut into sales and also cut profit. They have found that magical balancing point where they move a significant number of machines yet are profitable.
As far as buying 3 PCs for the price of 1 mac, yeah, in many cases that's possible. But over the life of your mac, you're likely to have to replace your PC 3 times, or spend much more on service and maintenance. Those that 'get it' see this.
Now, granted, there are cases where buying some cheapo PC is what's needed to do the job. In that case, go ahead and get it. Apple realizes that market isn't for them, so they just don't go there. yeah, they could move a few more boxes, but at the cost of their brand image, which right now is HUGE.
I'm still waiting for the thread that states Apple has the highest gross profit for its computers. Wonder if we'll ever see it? \
And you know this how? Apple has never broken down their Gross Margin to individual product lines.
Apples' 34% Total Gross Margin, which includes ALL products, may be one of the highest in the industry but no where near Intel (60%) and Microsoft (80%).
Anyone with a high school level math skill can easily calculate that Apple Gross Margin on their computers is about average for computers costing over $1000. Now it's almost a given that Apples' Gross Margin on their iPods and iPhones is anywhere from 40% to 50%. Most likely closer to 50%. iPods and iPhones constitute about 50% of Apple's Total Revenue. And Macs constitute about the other 50% of Total Revenue. (Software, iTunes and Apple care rounds it out to 100%) Simple maths tell us that Macs can't have a Gross Margin of 34%. It has to be in the 25% range. Otherwise their Total Gross Margin would be way above 34% if half their revenue that comes from iPods and iPhones already have a Gross Margin that is way above 40%.
Dell and HP on the otherhand has Gross Margins of about 15% on their computers. Now the vast majority of the computers they sell are below $1000. The Gross Margins on these computers are said to be in the high single digit. Now in order for them to get to a 15% Gross Margin for all computers sold, their $1000 and above computers got to have a Gross Margin of around 25%.
Simple math tells us that HP and Dell makes as much profit from selling a $2500 computer as Apple does. It's just that Apple don't sell computers with a less than 10% Gross Margin (at least it's assume that they don't) to bring down their Total Gross Margin. Now if HP and Dell stops selling $399 computers, their Gross Margin (for computers) would easily approach that of Apple's. But their Total Revenue would be way down. Maybe even below that of Apple's.
Comments
I never understand the comments about the "geeks". That about the same percentage as hardcore gamers which is about 5%. The fact that users want their multi function table to multi function doesn't make them a geek. Talking about a front mounted webcam, multitasking or even Flash doesn't make someone a geek. Its not like anyone has asked for watercooling with an Nvidia 295 GTX GPU option on the iPad.
This is 2010 any multi function device should be able to do more then one thing at a time. This was suppose to be the most innovative device of 2010 and it simply isn't even for the average Joe.
It is. Again, you're displaying a colossal lack of understanding when it comes to the Average Joe, despite your readiness to offer explanations about this class of consumer. In nearly every thread which deals with this subject your posts are misinformed.
It is. Again, you're displaying a colossal lack of understanding when it comes to the Average Joe, despite your readiness to offer explanations about this class of consumer. In nearly every thread which deals with this subject your posts are simply misinformed.
Whats funny Quadra is how you talk out of both sides of your mouth. First we get the posts that talk about how Apple only caters to the "premium" market and not everyone can afford to buy an Apple computer, which I would assume would be the average joe buying a netbook. Then in the next thread you talk about Apple somehow understanding what the average joe wants. Really the only joke here is you.
I would say the only person that is totally misinformed and out ot touch is you but its more like you slant the topic to suit your bias agenda. People may not like what I have to say at times but at least I don't flip flop twenty times a day.
So make up your mind is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
That sprang immediately to mind as I prepared to respond to some of the more ludicrous comments *smiles and nods*
Anyway, I had a nice conversation with my neighbor who came over to announce that they had purchased their first "Mac". After raving on a bit about the design and how easy it was to use and manage, and how nice the Apple Store people were, I politely interrupted the fan rave and asked "why" they chose to buy a Mac. After all they had been using PCs for at least the decade they had been my neighbors - in fact I had helped them out technically a time or two in that time when they had issues. Well, it turns out that they had been buying PCs every couple of years at about $600 to $1000 a pop. So they sat down and figured out that they had spent in excess of $2500 over the last 6 years to replace disfunctional computers. He had been talking to a coworker and she had owned her "Mac" for like 7 years and it was still going strong, having paid out around $1500 (edit note: for that Apple tax of course!) for it brand new. She reported other stuff to him, about never having a virus in that time, how easy it was to set-up and keep running, yada-yada-yada. He couldn't believe it. He and his wife went over to check it out and sure enough it was still running fast and smooth. They decided to trip over to the local Apple Store here (a couple of time actually) and ended up buying one. He told me that they figured out that for $1000 less than they had paid for three PCs, they could have a machine that "just worked".
Say what you will. This is an average person, a PC user, that switched. They are more in the larger mainstream of average consumers than most of the commenters here (judging from the general geekiness of the commentary). You cannot calculate simply the cost of the hardware, or the OS, or the software. You have to consider the TCO (total cost of ownership) over time, and the IPV (innate perceived value) for the user. Apple devices hold their value longer and better than most of their PC counterparts (as demonstrated by consistently higher resale value in places like eBay), their longer, lower maintenance useful life, (as reported: PC users trade out their PCs every 2-3 years on average, Apple users trade out theirs every 7 years on average) and the overall better quality of build, fit and finish. You can nitpick all you want (and lord knows a lot of you do), but in the final analysis, as the average consumer gets more and more familiar with Apple products, they will expand Apple's marketshare as a result. That is one of the purposes of the iPods and iPhone - it is a lower threshold experience that, if positive will build brand acceptance and preference for Apple. It is the reason behind the Apple retail stores. Loyalty of Apple users is legendary, and a constant source of koolaid, fanboi and RDF jokes and commentary. That's fine. The average consumer could care less than you imagine and they hold the purse-strings. Apple is fine with slowly, carefully and profitably building marketshare. The profits ensure they remain capitalized and viable and able to act on their vision.
So make up your mind is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
... is Apple creating products for the premium well off consumer or the average joe?
My original comment was not really clear about what I meant in regard to 'average Joe'. I was thinking that he was average only in that he did not care to understand the nuances of the OS but was not without the disposable income necessary to own an Apple product. So he is 'well off' average Joe.
I had to chuckle my way through some of the commentary above. There is an enduring Minnesota aphorism that runs something like this, "please do not mistake my polite attention to your raving nonsense as anything other than good manners. It just wouldn't be very nice to point out that you are spouting complete drivel."
Well said. The fundamental design principle of the Mac was "the computer for the rest of us." The funny part is, some of the "rest of us" turned out to be people like myself who didn't lack for technical expertise, but once they saw the Mac recognized it as the way a computer should work. After which ensued decades of technorati snorting about how the Mac was childish and not for real work and nobody who wanted to be taken seriously would own one. It was all about control, of course. Still is.
I understand that and so do you however that isn't Quadra rhetoric which is what I am calling him out on.
Also when talking about the "average joe" by now everyone with even a basic notebook has at least dual core. So its safe to say multitasking is not some geek required function. By now everyone pretty much expects their system to perform more then one task at a time. Having a built in webcam is also pretty standard these days.
Like I said I don't see anyone asking for an overclocked watercooled version of the iPad with a 295GTX with heatpipe sticking out of the back.
Also when talking about a mobile device that is also somewhat subjective. While some one consider any notebook a mobile device others would say only a PDA or smartphone is a true mobile device. So while the average joe most likely has lower expectations for his smartphone he isn't going to be as forgiving for a Tablet he might have spend 829.00 for before tax and accessories.
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
My original comment was not really clear about what I meant in regard to 'average Joe'. I was thinking that he was average only in that he did not care to understand the nuances of the OS but was not without the disposable income necessary to own an Apple product. So he is 'well off' average Joe.
Thats okay...lol. Thats better anyways we wouldn't want Quadra to get all upset thinking average consumers could afford to by elite Apple products. That would just mess up his entire year thinking he wasn't somehow special.
and microsoft does? vista was a mess, but i'm running windows 7 with 3 GB of RAM and a $60 video card and i can't find a game that i can't play on highest settings (crysis excluded, but i run that on high) i don't even have a core 2 duo, i'm using a pentium dual core (not netburst).
i was previously using my incredibly outdated nvidia 7000 series integrated graphics, which also worked just fine with aero.
for $1000, you get a laptop from apple with 2 GB of RAM. a $684 dell laptop comes with 6 GB of RAM.
now that microsoft has a competent OS, i see no reason to pay an apple hardware tax unless i graduate with an incredibly awesome job. i enjoy my macbook mainly for its excellent hardware quality, size, and battery life, but now i consider mac os to only really be better for software development and for not having any annoying activation junk. i bought my macbook when the best microsoft had to offer was windows xp.
nice pointless exaggeration.
I have an iMac 2.0 GHz from late 2007. First of the aluminum/Leopard iMacs. Just 1 GB of RAM. I've used both W7 Beta and RC. RC is coming to a close as my key code is old.
With only 1 GB of RAM, I can run W7 in either BootCamp or VirtualBox. Except for issues with W7 and Leopard in BootCamp, all is fine. Kinda slow, but fine. In BootCamp, I can run W7 and Ubuntu through VirtualBox. Ubuntu set at 384 MB.
When running VirtualBox in Leopard, W7 runs with just 512 MB. It isn't any slower than Leopard is with just 512 MB.
Windows 7 works better with my weak eyesight. Leopard has better speech. Neither OS is perfect. Both give me fair amounts of hourglasses or spinning wheels.
Ubuntu requires a lot of knowledge to use without issue. Windows 7 seems stable. Until Apple does something to make OS X easier to see, Windows 7 is a clear winner for me.
I understand that and so do you however that isn't Quadra rhetoric which is what I am calling him out on. .
Actually it *is* "Quadra rhetoric." Always has been. You'll find Average Consumers in all income brackets.
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
And yet . . . record Mac sales in a recession - and more sold every quarter, despite the availability and aggressive promotion of cheaper alternatives. Seems plenty of people see value in Macs and Apple products.
Someone earning $80,000+ a year might have a good education with an advanced degree, but they may still want (and this is often the case) hassle-free, attractive and usable tech. When it comes to tech, they might be *very* average.
I never realized you had such a narrow definition of the market, which in fact speaks more to stereotypes than reality.
The average joe tends to work hard for his money and likes to get more for his money, not less.
Your definition of "more" excludes anything Apple has ever produces and will likely ever produce. Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition. Take the iPod, for example. It has less features to put on a spec sheet yet but the features they do have are more user friendly and more refined that the competition which was a key factor in making the iPod a raging success the world over. They also give the consumer more confidence in the product should there be a defect. This is has lead to the "halo effect" which is getting consumers to consider and eventually buy Macs because they feel they more usable functionality for their dollar.
Actually it *is* "Quadra rhetoric." Always has been. You'll find Average Consumers in all income brackets.
And yet . . . record Mac sales in a recession - and more sold every quarter. Seems plenty of people see value in Macs and Apple products.
Someone earning $80,000+ a year might have a good education with an advanced degree, but they may still want (and this is often the case) hassle-free, attractive and usable tech. When it comes to tech, they might be *very* average.
I never realized you had such a narrow definition of the market, which in fact speaks more to stereotypes than reality.
Actually my definintion was rather large, you don't seem me putting salary limits on whats considered average. Also what you consider hassle free and attractive is a subjective opinion, not fact in any way.
Maybe not every consumer wants a totally controlled OS, maybe some of us average consumers have the ability and understanding to customize our OS. Maybe we want the choice to pick what drivers we install.
You use the terms junkware and crapware which just makes you look like an idiot. Having a preference in one thing, making a choice is fine but lets not pretend your rhetoric isn't very clear.
You give opinion on products you have never even used and even worse bash them. And you have the nerve to call anyone here misinformed.
Your definition of "more" excludes anything Apple has ever produces and will likely ever produce. Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition. Take the iPod, for example. It has less features to put on a spec sheet yet but the features they do have are more user friendly and more refined that the competition which was a key factor in making the iPod a raging success the world over. They also give the consumer more confidence in the product should there be a defect. This is has lead to the "halo effect" which is getting consumers to consider and eventually buy Macs because they feel they more usable functionality for their dollar.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
If that list is the best you can do, Apple comes off looking mucho impressive.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard.
Except for Macs (iMacs, notebooks, the Air is limited by its cost), OS X (MS seems to thinks so), iPods, iPhones, iTunes, nearly everything they sell on the consumer market. Up in sales quarter after quarter, year over year, if not already well-established in sales over time (i.e., the iPod.)
If you're talking about pre-2001 or pre-2000, who gives a damn? Apple is the single most important and influential tech company of our time, and easily for the past decade. By the looks of it, this next decade is going to be huge for Apple. Apple's already got the mobile market (phones, slates/tablets) figured out for the next five years. Easy.
Well said. The fundamental design principle of the Mac was "the computer for the rest of us." The funny part is, some of the "rest of us" turned out to be people like myself who didn't lack for technical expertise, but once they saw the Mac recognized it as the way a computer should work. After which ensued decades of technorati snorting about how the Mac was childish and not for real work and nobody who wanted to be taken seriously would own one. It was all about control, of course. Still is.
While I am not fond of HP, by any means, I like their slogan, "The computer is personal again."
The computer for the rest of us, is fine, if you are willing to own one of the few offerings from Apple. Just because Steve Jobs thinks all computers should be all-in-one, doesn't make it so.
"Apple focuses on making the areas they do excel in to be worlds apart from the competition"
You mean like Apple TV or the Mac Mini. Maybe you are talking about the G4 Cube that got its cooling for all the stress cracks. Or the Macbook Air which really doesn't sell well at all.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
Apple has always had only a few products. It's how they roll. Not all have been successes, but you can't call something a failure because you don't think the sales were as high as you think they should be.
In the case of the MBA it uses an SFF ULV C2D that is slower than other Macs processors yet costs more. This obviously isn't going to be the most popular machine they'll sell. I do know 4 people who have them but I know I lot more with other Mac notebooks. The 4 that I know have proper desktops at home, not laptops, which makes it a more natural fit for them. We've seen other vendors copy Apple's ultra-light using nearly identical parts so they must have seen a market for them, too.
I don't know anyone with a Mac mini but their are many posters here who love it, their are copycat vendors and even a mini-case with mini-ATX design that is slightly more expensive once you buy all the parts. It seems that is a success in it's own right. They've even made a server version, which makes sense after all the news on using it as such. I just wish they'd have gone a little further with dual-1Gb Ethernet ports and an SD card slot for restoring the OS, to name a couple.
And you can't say Macs haven't been successful when we see MS copying many aspects of Mac OS X, everything always being compared to Macs and Mac OS X, and the increase in sales outpacing the market.
Apple has always had only a few products. It's how they roll. Not all have been successes, but you can't call something a failure because you don't think the sales were as high as you think they should be.
In the case of the MBA it uses an SFF ULV C2D that is slower than other Macs processors yet costs more. This obviously isn't going to be the most popular machine they'll sell. I do know 4 people who have them but I know I lot more with other Mac notebooks. The 4 that I know have proper desktops at home, not laptops, which makes it a more natural fit for them. We've seen other vendors copy Apple's ultra-light using nearly identical parts so they must have seen a market for them, too.
I don't know anyone with a Mac mini but their are many posters here who love it, their are copycat vendors and even a mini-case with mini-ATX design that is slightly more expensive once you buy all the parts. It seems that is a success in it's own right. They've even made a server version, which makes sense after all the news on using it as such. I just wish they'd have gone a little further with dual-1Gb Ethernet ports and an SD card slot for restoring the OS, to name a couple.
And you can't say Macs haven't been successful when we see MS copying many aspects of Mac OS X, everything always being compared to Macs and Mac OS X, and the increase in sales outpacing the market.
It's as if extremehater goes blind and deaf the day before Apple releases their quarterly reports.
Over the decades Apple has had very few products that have done well by any standard. The iPod and the iPhone are really the only two devices that the masses have adopted. Clearly the average joes of the world disagree with the statement.
Really? Then how do you explain this?
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...NPD/1248313624
It seems that Apple is doing very well with the segment of the computer users that are willing to spend more than $1000 for a computer.
The brilliance is that Apple kept prices to a point where they are insanely profitable. Lowering the price would move more machines, but wouldn't increase Apple's profit. In fact, it could hurt the profit. Raising the price more would cut into sales and also cut profit. They have found that magical balancing point where they move a significant number of machines yet are profitable.
As far as buying 3 PCs for the price of 1 mac, yeah, in many cases that's possible. But over the life of your mac, you're likely to have to replace your PC 3 times, or spend much more on service and maintenance. Those that 'get it' see this.
Now, granted, there are cases where buying some cheapo PC is what's needed to do the job. In that case, go ahead and get it. Apple realizes that market isn't for them, so they just don't go there. yeah, they could move a few more boxes, but at the cost of their brand image, which right now is HUGE.
I'm still waiting for the thread that states Apple has the highest gross profit for its computers. Wonder if we'll ever see it?
And you know this how? Apple has never broken down their Gross Margin to individual product lines.
Apples' 34% Total Gross Margin, which includes ALL products, may be one of the highest in the industry but no where near Intel (60%) and Microsoft (80%).
Anyone with a high school level math skill can easily calculate that Apple Gross Margin on their computers is about average for computers costing over $1000. Now it's almost a given that Apples' Gross Margin on their iPods and iPhones is anywhere from 40% to 50%. Most likely closer to 50%. iPods and iPhones constitute about 50% of Apple's Total Revenue. And Macs constitute about the other 50% of Total Revenue. (Software, iTunes and Apple care rounds it out to 100%) Simple maths tell us that Macs can't have a Gross Margin of 34%. It has to be in the 25% range. Otherwise their Total Gross Margin would be way above 34% if half their revenue that comes from iPods and iPhones already have a Gross Margin that is way above 40%.
Dell and HP on the otherhand has Gross Margins of about 15% on their computers. Now the vast majority of the computers they sell are below $1000. The Gross Margins on these computers are said to be in the high single digit. Now in order for them to get to a 15% Gross Margin for all computers sold, their $1000 and above computers got to have a Gross Margin of around 25%.
Simple math tells us that HP and Dell makes as much profit from selling a $2500 computer as Apple does. It's just that Apple don't sell computers with a less than 10% Gross Margin (at least it's assume that they don't) to bring down their Total Gross Margin. Now if HP and Dell stops selling $399 computers, their Gross Margin (for computers) would easily approach that of Apple's. But their Total Revenue would be way down. Maybe even below that of Apple's.