Alright, applenut. Apple's margins are like, what, 30% on the PM? Perhaps more...I heard thirty was just the AVERAGE....
Anyway, 30% of 3499 is $1049.70......subtract that from 3499 and we have 2449.30.....and they charge 2700 for a developer's discount on a PM Dual.......right? That is only if we figure 30%....it could be even more.....i would assume it is not less, or if it is, not much less.....
How's that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
read posts above about margins. they could help you.
if you can't admit you were an ass with your iPod pricing then don't do it. who cares. you're only looking dumber
read posts above about margins. they could help you.
if you can't admit you were an ass with your iPod pricing then don't do it. who cares. you're only looking dumber</strong><hr></blockquote>
Alright applenut, that just isn't required. In the past two weeks you have called my ideas "dumb" and personally called me an "ass".
I have said I disagree with you on points, sometimes quite extremely, but name calling is just not required. I don't understand why you need to do that.
My margins are very close and you know it. It is widely known the PowerMac is one of the highest margin items for them. We have to assume the margin is 30%.....it is a fair assumption. I had heard earlier today that the developer price on a PM Dual is $2700. I am assuming again, that this is correct.(though I'm willing to concede it might not be). To reach your developer cost=Apple cost theory we would have to use a margin of around 20%.
One of the things I have learned, applenut is that sometimes one doesn't need exact numbers to draw reasonable conclusions. We are only estimating and a difference of like 2% in this case doesn't really matter for our purposes.
Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!! The fact is we don't know exactly what the margin on the iPod is. We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT!!!!
Just becuase you dug around and found some retail numbers means nothing about what Apple paid for it. Some companies, like GM for example, sell their products at a 50% mark up over their cost (i know this for a fact). If Toshiba cut them a deal at a much lower profit than usual they very well could have gotten them for $200, or even 150 for that matter.
Sometimes you make great points but sometimes I swear you just argue for the sake of being difficult.
Margin is 4.7%. Don't confuse margin with gross margin!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly the point -- 90% of the people reading this can't tell a P&L statement from a chocolate cake recipe.
"Hey, I heard Apple's gross margins are 30%, so that means they can cut prices 29% and still be profitable, right?"
If you don't see the illogic in the above statement, either take a business class, or don't bother offering ill-informed ideas about what Apple oughtta do about price cuts.
Considering Apple's small market share, if they didn't maintain at least a 25% gross margin, they'd be out of business. Do you really think it would be a good thing for all us Apple users if they charged $250 for the iPod, $599 for the low-end iMac, and $2000 for the high-end Powermac, and filed for bankruptcy in a year?
[quote]Alright applenut, that just isn't required. In the past two weeks you have called my ideas "dumb" and personally called me an "ass". <hr></blockquote>
your price of 150 for cost of an iPod was dumb and you are being a stubborn ass by refusing to logically accept the fact that the iPod costs more to manufacture than you think it does. got a problem with that? tough.
[quote]
My margins are very close and you know it. It is widely known the PowerMac is one of the highest margin items for them. We have to assume the margin is 30%.....it is a fair assumption. I had heard earlier today that the developer price on a PM Dual is $2700. I am assuming again, that this is correct.(though I'm willing to concede it might not be). To reach your developer cost=Apple cost theory we would have to use a margin of around 20%.<hr></blockquote>
it appears that developer/employee pricing is right around 20 percent for all products except for the lowend iMac and iBook. now is that not a reasonable figure for yourself. Maybe its not exactly cost. but it gives you a good idea of what cost is for Apple.
and doesn't the gross margin number get inflated to 30% through software sales or is that a seperate figure.
30 percent on a single desktop CPU would be some massive margins.
[quote]
One of the things I have learned, applenut is that sometimes one doesn't need exact numbers to draw reasonable conclusions. We are only estimating and a difference of like 2% in this case doesn't really matter for our purposes. <hr></blockquote>
one of the things I have learned is that without any information to back myself up I have no basis for my point. you my friend have no basis for your numbers.
[quote]Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!!<hr></blockquote>
why is that so unrealistic? they sell a 100,000 in this quarter that's 8,000,000 in profit and 39,900,000 in revenue. that's a 20 percent profit margin. now if cost is a bit lower, maybe 299. then margin is 25%. I don't see how they could have a bigger margin than 25 percent on the device. 25 percent is big for a item at that price.
[quote]We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT!!!! <hr></blockquote>
obsession? what the hell is wrong with you? seriously. I looked for OEM pricing. and I said the only thing I came up with was the retail prices.
now with your theory, Apple should charge less for the iPod in retail than Toshiba does for only the DRIVE!? That is what I am trying to tell you and you are somehow unable to comprehend. Think a little. If Apple was able to do your price people would just buy the iPod and rip the drive from it if they wanted the Toshiba drive.
[quote]If Toshiba cut them a deal at a much lower profit than usual they very well could have gotten them for $200, or even 150 for that matter. <hr></blockquote>
Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!! The fact is we don't know exactly what the margin on the iPod is. We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's another point.... people are confusing the RETAIL price of the iPod with Apple's revenue from the iPod. Sure, Apple sells plenty of them direct through apple.com, but many more are sold through other outlets... CompUSA or Fry's or whatever. Now, if Fry's sells it to you for $399, do you suppose they're doing it as a favor to Apple, or is it possible that they're marking it up some amount? And if they're marking it up, then wouldn't that mean that Apple is receiving less than $399 for each iPod sold?
If you want Apple to "suggested retail" the iPod for $249, then they'd need to sell them to retailers for under $200 each. Considering that there's no possible way they're getting these hard drives (remember, they're not 3.5" hard drives and they're not even 2.5" laptop hard drives -- they're much smaller and more expensive than that) for anything close to $200, and also considering that (as Applenut mentioned) Apple has to add components and casing and packaging to the hard drive, a $249 retail on the iPod is way off in the future.
can't we all just get along??? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
btw, there's too much crying around here....
apple hears you guys LOUD AND CLEAR, without needing to make another thread bashing apple.....they already know you want a G5, new imac, etc......they're working on it.....it takes time......chill......one more thread crying about performance isn't helping them at all....i'm sure they're working as fast as they can to give us the best, most reliable products......
when i buy an apple product, i look for QUALITY.....if it costs them 400 to make an ipod and cover all costs, then i'll believe them.....the ipod is the best out there.......making the best requires more time and effort = higher cost......
having it at 400 is hurting them enough already......i'm sure they really wanna bring the price down to get more costumers, but it takes time......
LISTEN:
everyone sit back, relax, and engage in MEANINGFULL, INTERESTING debate....and lets try to keep the crying to a minimum (though i agree a little bit is deserved and needed.)
1) I admitted like four posts ago that my initial figures were probably off. AND, AGAIN, I never said it costs only $150 to make an iPod...NEVER. I also later said perhaps 299 for a retail price of the ipod was more reasonable.....
What I AM saying is that I still don't think they paid what you think they did. I could be wrong, but I think Apple has huge mark-ups in general....don't you? And anyway, I never actually claimed to definitely know what they paid.....you are the one who is sticking like GLUE to your assertion that Apple is paying a high price for the drive, based on nothing but retail prices....that is why I used the word "obsession"....who has baseless numbers here?
2) My theory of selliing an iPod below the cost of the drive"???? WTF does that mean? I never said that. In any case, if your $499 number is correct for your retail price (this is what you mentioned right?), then they are already selling it under the retail cost of the drive anyway.
You have no basis other than than the retail price. I was just trying to say that:
1) I don't think they make as little as you think they do on the iPod.
2) I think it is possible that the drive goes for one hell of a lot less than the retail price. Now, I ask you...do YOU honestly believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE that they paid $200 for the drive? Because until I find out for sure I think that is at least reasonable number....or at least possible.
And for your comments: "think a little" and "what you can't comprehend", well I seem to have been able to to think enough and comprehend enough to hold down a full time teaching position, get a college degree with honors, and be accepted in graduate school.
My numbers aren't that far off becuase if you think that Apple doesn't make near 30% on a PM then you are more naive then I thought.
One more thing applenut: You remember our "age doesn't matter argument"? Well, I think it DOES matter. It is not that I don't respect your opinion, or that your not entitled...it is just that you refuse to acknowledge I have been dealing with the world for 10 more years than you have been. I have bought cars, computers, sold a house and settled an estate as an executor of a will. I know a little more about how things operate in the world than you do.....it is not that I think I'm better, I just think you fail to recognize that experience does count for something.
So who is the stubborn one now?
In any case, the iPod was only a minor point to this thread. The point was Apple charges huge money for products that don't compete.
<strong>can't we all just get along??? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
btw, there's too much crying around here....
apple hears you guys LOUD AND CLEAR, without needing to make another thread bashing apple.....they already know you want a G5, new imac, etc......they're working on it.....it takes time......chill......one more thread crying about performance isn't helping them at all....i'm sure they're working as fast as they can to give us the best, most reliable products......
when i buy an apple product, i look for QUALITY.....if it costs them 400 to make an ipod and cover all costs, then i'll believe them.....the ipod is the best out there.......making the best requires more time and effort = higher cost......
having it at 400 is hurting them enough already......i'm sure they really wanna bring the price down to get more costumers, but it takes time......
LISTEN:
everyone sit back, relax, and engage in MEANINGFULL, INTERESTING debate....and lets try to keep the crying to a minimum (though i agree a little bit is deserved and needed.)
The iPod may well be the best, But right now, the iMac and the PM aren't. And they charging freakin outrageous prices for the PM......the iMac is much more reasonable, and we all know it is getting updated so I'm not crying about that.
If they are going to charge 3499 for a machine without a monitor then it damn well better be the fastest most bitchin thing on the planet. It's not.
You don't have to be an Apple zealot to see that you pay extra for the iPod, but you get more. The very latest technology (tiny hard drive, polymer battery) always comes at a premium.
Oh, and the Treo was $400 retail when it was released earlier this year. No doubt they had to cut the price when Archos cut the price of their Jukebox 6000 (also larger than the iPod, also USB) to $250 also.
[quote] Do you really think it would be a good thing for all us Apple users if they charged $250 for the iPod, $599 for the low-end iMac, and $2000 for the high-end Powermac, and filed for bankruptcy in a year? <hr></blockquote>
The idea is that Apple is loosing sales because of their high prices. If they lowered their prices then we think that their sales may go up. With higher volume, a business can make the same profit with lower margins.
I know for a fact several people who would have bought macs if the prices were better. The iMac's price was ok, but they wanted a decent display....and they would have even spent $1800 or so on a Mac if it were like an imac with a larger display! But Apple refuses to offer such a computer! That's just dumb.
All Apple had to do was price the cube at $1100-1300, then with a nice Apple display it would have totaled 1600 and 1900. This fills in the gap in their lineup, and I'm certain it would give Apple more customers.
I don't understand why it's so hard for Apple to figure out that if they cut prices to expand their sales volume, and marketshare, that their profits will remain the same or even grow. Sure, MAYBE it wouldn't work, but Apple won't even TRY it! All they need to do is release a "test balloon, a cheaper mac, and see what it's sales are like. If it's a bust, then can it. The Cube COULD have been such an experiment, but Apple got greedy and blew it.
<strong>I don't understand why it's so hard for Apple to figure out that if they cut prices to expand their sales volume, and marketshare, that their profits will remain the same or even grow. Sure, MAYBE it wouldn't work, but Apple won't even TRY it! All they need to do is release a "test balloon, a cheaper mac, and see what it's sales are like. If it's a bust, then can it. The Cube COULD have been such an experiment, but Apple got greedy and blew it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do have a cheap computer. It's the $799 iMac. Or do you mean a good computer for a cheap price?
<strong>The iPod is way over-priced. [...]It must be the FireWire port that adds $150.00 to the cost of the unit. Because it sure isn't the harddrive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I would have to do is transfer the 10 GB of MP3s once and I would be pulling that extra $150 out of my pocket in an instant.
If you ask me, the FireWire, and the ease of synching with iTunes, is completely worth $150.
Comments
<strong>Something like these...
<a href="http://www.dynamism.com/c815/main.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.dynamism.com/c815/main.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://www.dynamism.com/priusdeck/main.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.dynamism.com/priusdeck/main.shtml</a>;
But with a $1499 US price tag....
Holy Jesus!!! And some of you think Apple is ripping you off!!!!
I poked around that Dynamism site a little, and <a href="http://www.dynamism.com/kxlcb10an/index.shtml"; target="_blank">look what popped up</a>.
I couldn't find specs for it in English, but that drive looks incredibly slim.
One of those built into a PBG4 would garner some r-e-s-p-e-c-t, no?
[QBAfter all, it's a computer, and not a religion
That's a pretty dangerous statement there.
Slacker makes a good point. Apple is the by far the hardest working PC maker. They put 110% into every product they build. I respect for that.
I think they should have a DVD drive accessed by flipping the keyboard up.
That way they won't have to wait until *someone* comes out with a 10mmm or whatever slot loading superdrive, they could offer it next month!
I'd bet my left hazlenut that the mechanism for slot loading the disc is enough to make space for superdrive parts.
<strong>I think Apple should remove the slot loading DVD.
I think they should have a DVD drive accessed by flipping the keyboard up.
That way they won't have to wait until *someone* comes out with a 10mmm or whatever slot loading superdrive, they could offer it next month!
I'd bet my left hazlenut that the mechanism for slot loading the disc is enough to make space for superdrive parts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think they should have anything as long as it's not slot loading so we won't have to wait for the drive.
<strong>
Alright, applenut. Apple's margins are like, what, 30% on the PM? Perhaps more...I heard thirty was just the AVERAGE....
Anyway, 30% of 3499 is $1049.70......subtract that from 3499 and we have 2449.30.....and they charge 2700 for a developer's discount on a PM Dual.......right? That is only if we figure 30%....it could be even more.....i would assume it is not less, or if it is, not much less.....
How's that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
read posts above about margins. they could help you.
if you can't admit you were an ass with your iPod pricing then don't do it. who cares. you're only looking dumber
<strong>
read posts above about margins. they could help you.
if you can't admit you were an ass with your iPod pricing then don't do it. who cares. you're only looking dumber</strong><hr></blockquote>
Alright applenut, that just isn't required. In the past two weeks you have called my ideas "dumb" and personally called me an "ass".
I have said I disagree with you on points, sometimes quite extremely, but name calling is just not required. I don't understand why you need to do that.
My margins are very close and you know it. It is widely known the PowerMac is one of the highest margin items for them. We have to assume the margin is 30%.....it is a fair assumption. I had heard earlier today that the developer price on a PM Dual is $2700. I am assuming again, that this is correct.(though I'm willing to concede it might not be). To reach your developer cost=Apple cost theory we would have to use a margin of around 20%.
One of the things I have learned, applenut is that sometimes one doesn't need exact numbers to draw reasonable conclusions. We are only estimating and a difference of like 2% in this case doesn't really matter for our purposes.
Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!! The fact is we don't know exactly what the margin on the iPod is. We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT!!!!
Just becuase you dug around and found some retail numbers means nothing about what Apple paid for it. Some companies, like GM for example, sell their products at a 50% mark up over their cost (i know this for a fact). If Toshiba cut them a deal at a much lower profit than usual they very well could have gotten them for $200, or even 150 for that matter.
Sometimes you make great points but sometimes I swear you just argue for the sake of being difficult.
Please leave the name calling off next time.
<strong>
Margin is 4.7%. Don't confuse margin with gross margin!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly the point -- 90% of the people reading this can't tell a P&L statement from a chocolate cake recipe.
"Hey, I heard Apple's gross margins are 30%, so that means they can cut prices 29% and still be profitable, right?"
If you don't see the illogic in the above statement, either take a business class, or don't bother offering ill-informed ideas about what Apple oughtta do about price cuts.
Considering Apple's small market share, if they didn't maintain at least a 25% gross margin, they'd be out of business. Do you really think it would be a good thing for all us Apple users if they charged $250 for the iPod, $599 for the low-end iMac, and $2000 for the high-end Powermac, and filed for bankruptcy in a year?
your price of 150 for cost of an iPod was dumb and you are being a stubborn ass by refusing to logically accept the fact that the iPod costs more to manufacture than you think it does. got a problem with that? tough.
[quote]
My margins are very close and you know it. It is widely known the PowerMac is one of the highest margin items for them. We have to assume the margin is 30%.....it is a fair assumption. I had heard earlier today that the developer price on a PM Dual is $2700. I am assuming again, that this is correct.(though I'm willing to concede it might not be). To reach your developer cost=Apple cost theory we would have to use a margin of around 20%.<hr></blockquote>
it appears that developer/employee pricing is right around 20 percent for all products except for the lowend iMac and iBook. now is that not a reasonable figure for yourself. Maybe its not exactly cost. but it gives you a good idea of what cost is for Apple.
and doesn't the gross margin number get inflated to 30% through software sales or is that a seperate figure.
30 percent on a single desktop CPU would be some massive margins.
[quote]
One of the things I have learned, applenut is that sometimes one doesn't need exact numbers to draw reasonable conclusions. We are only estimating and a difference of like 2% in this case doesn't really matter for our purposes. <hr></blockquote>
one of the things I have learned is that without any information to back myself up I have no basis for my point. you my friend have no basis for your numbers.
[quote]Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!!<hr></blockquote>
why is that so unrealistic? they sell a 100,000 in this quarter that's 8,000,000 in profit and 39,900,000 in revenue. that's a 20 percent profit margin. now if cost is a bit lower, maybe 299. then margin is 25%. I don't see how they could have a bigger margin than 25 percent on the device. 25 percent is big for a item at that price.
[quote]We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT!!!! <hr></blockquote>
obsession? what the hell is wrong with you? seriously. I looked for OEM pricing. and I said the only thing I came up with was the retail prices.
now with your theory, Apple should charge less for the iPod in retail than Toshiba does for only the DRIVE!? That is what I am trying to tell you and you are somehow unable to comprehend. Think a little. If Apple was able to do your price people would just buy the iPod and rip the drive from it if they wanted the Toshiba drive.
[quote]If Toshiba cut them a deal at a much lower profit than usual they very well could have gotten them for $200, or even 150 for that matter. <hr></blockquote>
who's making up numbers here?
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
<strong>
Now, for ipod....I probably should have revised my original comment on it.....$249 was a bit much at this time (or little actually). However, there is no way Apple is only making $80 per iPod....no WAY!!! The fact is we don't know exactly what the margin on the iPod is. We can guess, but it is just estimating. And I still don't understand your obession with quoting RETAIL prices...that means SHIT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's another point.... people are confusing the RETAIL price of the iPod with Apple's revenue from the iPod. Sure, Apple sells plenty of them direct through apple.com, but many more are sold through other outlets... CompUSA or Fry's or whatever. Now, if Fry's sells it to you for $399, do you suppose they're doing it as a favor to Apple, or is it possible that they're marking it up some amount? And if they're marking it up, then wouldn't that mean that Apple is receiving less than $399 for each iPod sold?
If you want Apple to "suggested retail" the iPod for $249, then they'd need to sell them to retailers for under $200 each. Considering that there's no possible way they're getting these hard drives (remember, they're not 3.5" hard drives and they're not even 2.5" laptop hard drives -- they're much smaller and more expensive than that) for anything close to $200, and also considering that (as Applenut mentioned) Apple has to add components and casing and packaging to the hard drive, a $249 retail on the iPod is way off in the future.
btw, there's too much crying around here....
apple hears you guys LOUD AND CLEAR, without needing to make another thread bashing apple.....they already know you want a G5, new imac, etc......they're working on it.....it takes time......chill......one more thread crying about performance isn't helping them at all....i'm sure they're working as fast as they can to give us the best, most reliable products......
when i buy an apple product, i look for QUALITY.....if it costs them 400 to make an ipod and cover all costs, then i'll believe them.....the ipod is the best out there.......making the best requires more time and effort = higher cost......
having it at 400 is hurting them enough already......i'm sure they really wanna bring the price down to get more costumers, but it takes time......
LISTEN:
everyone sit back, relax, and engage in MEANINGFULL, INTERESTING debate....and lets try to keep the crying to a minimum (though i agree a little bit is deserved and needed.)
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Max8319 ]</p>
1) I admitted like four posts ago that my initial figures were probably off. AND, AGAIN, I never said it costs only $150 to make an iPod...NEVER. I also later said perhaps 299 for a retail price of the ipod was more reasonable.....
What I AM saying is that I still don't think they paid what you think they did. I could be wrong, but I think Apple has huge mark-ups in general....don't you? And anyway, I never actually claimed to definitely know what they paid.....you are the one who is sticking like GLUE to your assertion that Apple is paying a high price for the drive, based on nothing but retail prices....that is why I used the word "obsession"....who has baseless numbers here?
2) My theory of selliing an iPod below the cost of the drive"???? WTF does that mean? I never said that. In any case, if your $499 number is correct for your retail price (this is what you mentioned right?), then they are already selling it under the retail cost of the drive anyway.
You have no basis other than than the retail price. I was just trying to say that:
1) I don't think they make as little as you think they do on the iPod.
2) I think it is possible that the drive goes for one hell of a lot less than the retail price. Now, I ask you...do YOU honestly believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE that they paid $200 for the drive? Because until I find out for sure I think that is at least reasonable number....or at least possible.
And for your comments: "think a little" and "what you can't comprehend", well I seem to have been able to to think enough and comprehend enough to hold down a full time teaching position, get a college degree with honors, and be accepted in graduate school.
My numbers aren't that far off becuase if you think that Apple doesn't make near 30% on a PM then you are more naive then I thought.
One more thing applenut: You remember our "age doesn't matter argument"? Well, I think it DOES matter. It is not that I don't respect your opinion, or that your not entitled...it is just that you refuse to acknowledge I have been dealing with the world for 10 more years than you have been. I have bought cars, computers, sold a house and settled an estate as an executor of a will. I know a little more about how things operate in the world than you do.....it is not that I think I'm better, I just think you fail to recognize that experience does count for something.
So who is the stubborn one now?
In any case, the iPod was only a minor point to this thread. The point was Apple charges huge money for products that don't compete.
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>can't we all just get along??? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
btw, there's too much crying around here....
apple hears you guys LOUD AND CLEAR, without needing to make another thread bashing apple.....they already know you want a G5, new imac, etc......they're working on it.....it takes time......chill......one more thread crying about performance isn't helping them at all....i'm sure they're working as fast as they can to give us the best, most reliable products......
when i buy an apple product, i look for QUALITY.....if it costs them 400 to make an ipod and cover all costs, then i'll believe them.....the ipod is the best out there.......making the best requires more time and effort = higher cost......
having it at 400 is hurting them enough already......i'm sure they really wanna bring the price down to get more costumers, but it takes time......
LISTEN:
everyone sit back, relax, and engage in MEANINGFULL, INTERESTING debate....and lets try to keep the crying to a minimum (though i agree a little bit is deserved and needed.)
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Max8319 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iPod may well be the best, But right now, the iMac and the PM aren't. And they charging freakin outrageous prices for the PM......the iMac is much more reasonable, and we all know it is getting updated so I'm not crying about that.
If they are going to charge 3499 for a machine without a monitor then it damn well better be the fastest most bitchin thing on the planet. It's not.
<a href="http://www.edigital-store.com/treo10.html"; target="_blank">http://www.edigital-store.com/treo10.html</a>;
It must be the FireWire port that adds $150.00 to the cost of the unit. Because it sure isn't the harddrive.
yeah, the PM do need an update and you'll get one at MWSF......patience
>> iPOD <<
2.43 x 4.02 x 0.78 inches
(7.6 cubic inches)
6.5 ounces
2" lcd, 160x128 pixels, backlit
10 hour battery (lithium polymer)
firewire interface
Apple brand name
>> treo 10 <<
3.03 x 4.63 x 0.77 inches
(10.8 cubic inches)
8 ounces
"large" LCD, 100x64, NON-backlit
6 hour battery (lithium-ion)
USB interface
"who the hell is e-Digital?" brand name
You don't have to be an Apple zealot to see that you pay extra for the iPod, but you get more. The very latest technology (tiny hard drive, polymer battery) always comes at a premium.
Oh, and the Treo was $400 retail when it was released earlier this year. No doubt they had to cut the price when Archos cut the price of their Jukebox 6000 (also larger than the iPod, also USB) to $250 also.
The idea is that Apple is loosing sales because of their high prices. If they lowered their prices then we think that their sales may go up. With higher volume, a business can make the same profit with lower margins.
I know for a fact several people who would have bought macs if the prices were better. The iMac's price was ok, but they wanted a decent display....and they would have even spent $1800 or so on a Mac if it were like an imac with a larger display! But Apple refuses to offer such a computer! That's just dumb.
All Apple had to do was price the cube at $1100-1300, then with a nice Apple display it would have totaled 1600 and 1900. This fills in the gap in their lineup, and I'm certain it would give Apple more customers.
I don't understand why it's so hard for Apple to figure out that if they cut prices to expand their sales volume, and marketshare, that their profits will remain the same or even grow. Sure, MAYBE it wouldn't work, but Apple won't even TRY it! All they need to do is release a "test balloon, a cheaper mac, and see what it's sales are like. If it's a bust, then can it. The Cube COULD have been such an experiment, but Apple got greedy and blew it.
<strong>I don't understand why it's so hard for Apple to figure out that if they cut prices to expand their sales volume, and marketshare, that their profits will remain the same or even grow. Sure, MAYBE it wouldn't work, but Apple won't even TRY it! All they need to do is release a "test balloon, a cheaper mac, and see what it's sales are like. If it's a bust, then can it. The Cube COULD have been such an experiment, but Apple got greedy and blew it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do have a cheap computer. It's the $799 iMac. Or do you mean a good computer for a cheap price?
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>The iPod is way over-priced. [...]It must be the FireWire port that adds $150.00 to the cost of the unit. Because it sure isn't the harddrive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I would have to do is transfer the 10 GB of MP3s once and I would be pulling that extra $150 out of my pocket in an instant.
If you ask me, the FireWire, and the ease of synching with iTunes, is completely worth $150.