I was just at Best Buy yesterday and cruised by the Apple Store just before. There was basically only 1 or 2 people at Best Buy in the PC area. It was basically EMPTY from what I saw. Apple Store? Packed. I see this all the time. When Windows 8 came out, there was basically 12 people, I did count them, in the PC area at Best Buy and the Apple Store has at LEAST 75 people and Best Buy does have a little more square footage since they carry more brands, etc. I saw only one couple that were actually looking a Windows 8 computers, the rest were playing around with tablets, and yes, Apple products. in the 1/2 hour I was at Best Buy, only one person actually bought anything Windows. Guess who it was? A Mac user installing Windows on his MBP, and they sold him the wrong version of Windows that wouldn't install on a Mac, so they had to figure out which version that would. It was kind of pathetic. This was about 4 days after the official Windows launch. I rarely see ANYONE playing around with the Surface tablets at Best Buy and I go there every so often, sometimes on weekends when they get the busiest traffic. I actually saw someone looking that Chromebook. Why? Probably because it was $250 for a basic needs laptop. I don't know if he actually bought the thing. But I rarely see people actually buying anything. most are just browsing. At the local Apple store there is usually a crowd of people getting their systems set up when they purchase a new computer/tablet/phone. The local Apple Store could easily double in size, but I don't know how high up on the list they are for expansion since Apple is busy expanding the larger stores and opening up new locations.
Not everyone that buys an Apple product is buying a $2K MBP. They sell a LOT of MBAirs. I sense some jealousy on your part because maybe you can't afford an Apple. but I've gone through price comparisons of what I would consider a product equal to a MBP and the PC equivelent isn't that much cheaper for a brand name product with similar specs. Those $399 laptops aren't the same specs as a $2K MBP so don't even go there. A $399 laptop is going to have an i3 or Celeron chip, 4G RAM, a crappy hard drive, plastic case. and a $2K MBP is going to have a decent amount of SSD memory, i7, 8G RAM, so you are comparing the cheapest POS PC Laptop with a fairly high end MBP. So get off your soapbox. You sound very jealous.
I'm sure after the warranty period is up on the $399 PC laptop, the mfg probably lost money due to support calls, replacing defective product.... How much do you think it costs in just mfg costs to make a $399 laptop? And they are selling the unit to Best Buy are probably around 25% off List. So Best Buy probably pays $300 for the thing and makes $100 gross profit for Best Buy. I'd be willing to wager that that $399 Laptop probably costs Dell, or whomever around $175 to $200 in total mfg/shipping costs. Trust me, one or two support calls per computer, and there goes the profits right down the support drain. $399 laptops are POS shit that won't last long. They use the cheapest grade hard drives they can find. Seriously, companies can't survive selling a box for $399 list for $300 to the reseller and the company itself makes about $100 gross profit, if they are lucky. It costs as much to support someone that buys a $399 laptop as it does a $2K laptop and in Apple's case, less. Apple will more likely sell an extended warranty contract for a $2K laptop where someone will use it and keep it for a number of years than a $399 throw away laptop. It wouldn't surprise me that many of the laptops being sold by Dell, HP, etc. actually lose money. Isn't Microsoft losing money on each XBox they sell?
You obviously don't know my history since you're making stupid accusations about my not being able to afford a Mac.
And you haven't disproven my statements, either.
There are a lot more PCs sold than Macs. The average selling price for PCs is much lower than for Macs. Macs have a dominant share in the higher value (over $1 K) segment. There are a lot of PCs for sale under $500, but no Macs. And in cases where Apple's price is closer to the PC price (MBA vs Ultrabooks), Macs do much better than their overall average.
So which of those statements is wrong?
The fact is that a lot of people are buying $500 computers where Apple doesn't compete. Are those computers a good deal because of quality and support costs? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the reality. Lots of people buy cheap computers. End of story.
If you want the obligatory car analogy, it's the same reason that people buy more Toyota Camry autos than Ferraris. Your logic would suggest that the people are turned off by the manual transmission. In reality, it's the price far more than anything.
Unfortunately, price is often the initial thing. But a lot of it is what he said: they aren't educated as to some of the issues (they haven't experienced it)... in other words, they are very much looking at buying a computer like buying a car (or a hammer), or something else that has more limited/occasional use. They say, "a tool is a tool, right?". The Hegemony of MS and Android and the race to the bottom of their OEMs has only re-inforced that impression, and have educated people to think they are buying something like a car or a hammer. That's the problem, and why people think that price is enough to consider.
In reality, of course, the obligatory car analogy (or thinking of a computer like a car) falls far short. A car takes you from A-B, whether that is a Yugo, a Toyota or a Ferrari. People might see some merit in a BMW or Mercedes (comfort, speed, reliability, quality, safety, resale value), but at the end of the day a Ferrari is over the top for most people on the planet. It's what, ten times the price or more of the average car? And costs more to keep and run, so that only two people can go faster only some of the time (on a race track). It's an expensive enthusiast's hobby, a fancy toy, or a luxury.
But is "computing" merely going from A-B for most people, most of the time? Certainly not when it comes to expectations over time, as technology progresses and more and more people do more and more things they never thought possible.
No, the better analogy is a house. We will ignore the luxury, multi-million condos on the beach or in the mountains (Ferraris), and we focus on your average house. You can build your own. You can buy one in the city. You can buy one on a farm. You can buy one with a yard. You can buy an apartment...
However, everyone knows the value and nature of wisely choosing a long-term investment like a house, and all the issues involved. They know that you have to live with itevery day; they know you have to be comfortable with your own home; they know that there is a lot that goes on within the walls -- that you aren't just buying the postcard version in the agent's ad.
Now, you can spend 150,000 or 300,000 (proportionally much closer together than the price of an average car and a Ferrari, as is the difference in price between an Apple product and the competition); and you can spend it with different priorities in mind : You might want a family home in the suburbs, or you might want a professional apartment in the city; whatever.
BUT, what is much more obvious to people about buying homes than to people buying computers or cars, is the idiocy of spending only 150,000 and then bragging about all the features (yard, conservatory, porch, attic, garage, hot and cold water), while in reality having something unliveable (un-usable) that is falling down around your ears, needs a new roof, new heating, new kitchen, new carpet, has dry-rot, has fungus...
If it's a fixer-upper and it's a 300 yr-old structure that needs a little TLC, then that is one thing, and it is part of the charm. But if you haven't done your due-diligence and had surveys taken, and if the structure is just poorly designed, built and fitted, then you need to get a cluebefore you make a purchase (like, check out all the urban myths); you are only hurting yourself -- all the more so if price really is a big issue to you!
MS and Google have only dumbed-down the initial critical decision; only for users to have to face critical and mind-numbing decisions, privacy concerns and maintenance issues every day thereafter, and to throw money and time down the drain that they didn't anticipate. Way to build trust and loyalty.
You have to live with it every day, but you are stuck with an unhealthy pile of crap that depresses you and keeps you from getting on with life in other areas because it is so high-maintenance; and no amount of "features" is going to make that any better. You have to live in it and you want to enjoy it; but you don't want to have to constantly deal with it or have to pay someone else to deal with it for you. That's what people need to experience and what people need to see or be educated about; and the Apple Stores probably help in that regard: showing that it doesn't have to be that way.
So, let's ditch the car analogies, and let's do houses! When choosing a house, you also have to research the neighborhood, schools, nearby shops and transportation routes. If a purchaser takes all that into account and just wants the "perfect location" even if they have to camp on the floor of a barn, or just wants a prefabricated rabbit hutch to live in because her priorities lie elsewhere, then good on them. But "everyone" knows that up front cost is the least of their worries when it comes to a house (in fact it can be a complete trap); they know that there is a lot more to moving in and making a place their home.
That's what gets me. I mean, I have no money to burn; so I am ultra-careful what I do with it. But the very people that say that price is such an issue very often don't go and do their due diligence (other than comparing prices between the same two crappy products). It just doesn't make sense. (And I blame the dumbing-down and numbing of the world by MS ).
Set a hammer on a table in a house, and ask someone who is about to purchase a computer or a smartphone if they would give more attention to the purchase of the hammer on the table or the house around you. A computer or smartphone purchase deserves a little more consideration than the purchase of a hammer.
[Just waiting for loads of people to tell me how Android or Windows "home ownership" is no hassle whatsoever.... yet they still have to take the garbage out, mow their lawn, pull weeds and wash their windows, etc., all the time professing to absolutely love it.]
Comments
You obviously don't know my history since you're making stupid accusations about my not being able to afford a Mac.
And you haven't disproven my statements, either.
There are a lot more PCs sold than Macs. The average selling price for PCs is much lower than for Macs. Macs have a dominant share in the higher value (over $1 K) segment. There are a lot of PCs for sale under $500, but no Macs. And in cases where Apple's price is closer to the PC price (MBA vs Ultrabooks), Macs do much better than their overall average.
So which of those statements is wrong?
The fact is that a lot of people are buying $500 computers where Apple doesn't compete. Are those computers a good deal because of quality and support costs? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the reality. Lots of people buy cheap computers. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you want the obligatory car analogy, it's the same reason that people buy more Toyota Camry autos than Ferraris. Your logic would suggest that the people are turned off by the manual transmission. In reality, it's the price far more than anything.
Unfortunately, price is often the initial thing. But a lot of it is what he said: they aren't educated as to some of the issues (they haven't experienced it)... in other words, they are very much looking at buying a computer like buying a car (or a hammer), or something else that has more limited/occasional use. They say, "a tool is a tool, right?". The Hegemony of MS and Android and the race to the bottom of their OEMs has only re-inforced that impression, and have educated people to think they are buying something like a car or a hammer. That's the problem, and why people think that price is enough to consider.
In reality, of course, the obligatory car analogy (or thinking of a computer like a car) falls far short. A car takes you from A-B, whether that is a Yugo, a Toyota or a Ferrari. People might see some merit in a BMW or Mercedes (comfort, speed, reliability, quality, safety, resale value), but at the end of the day a Ferrari is over the top for most people on the planet. It's what, ten times the price or more of the average car? And costs more to keep and run, so that only two people can go faster only some of the time (on a race track). It's an expensive enthusiast's hobby, a fancy toy, or a luxury.
But is "computing" merely going from A-B for most people, most of the time? Certainly not when it comes to expectations over time, as technology progresses and more and more people do more and more things they never thought possible.
No, the better analogy is a house. We will ignore the luxury, multi-million condos on the beach or in the mountains (Ferraris), and we focus on your average house. You can build your own. You can buy one in the city. You can buy one on a farm. You can buy one with a yard. You can buy an apartment...
However, everyone knows the value and nature of wisely choosing a long-term investment like a house, and all the issues involved. They know that you have to live with it every day; they know you have to be comfortable with your own home; they know that there is a lot that goes on within the walls -- that you aren't just buying the postcard version in the agent's ad.
Now, you can spend 150,000 or 300,000 (proportionally much closer together than the price of an average car and a Ferrari, as is the difference in price between an Apple product and the competition); and you can spend it with different priorities in mind : You might want a family home in the suburbs, or you might want a professional apartment in the city; whatever.
BUT, what is much more obvious to people about buying homes than to people buying computers or cars, is the idiocy of spending only 150,000 and then bragging about all the features (yard, conservatory, porch, attic, garage, hot and cold water), while in reality having something unliveable (un-usable) that is falling down around your ears, needs a new roof, new heating, new kitchen, new carpet, has dry-rot, has fungus...
If it's a fixer-upper and it's a 300 yr-old structure that needs a little TLC, then that is one thing, and it is part of the charm. But if you haven't done your due-diligence and had surveys taken, and if the structure is just poorly designed, built and fitted, then you need to get a clue before you make a purchase (like, check out all the urban myths); you are only hurting yourself -- all the more so if price really is a big issue to you!
MS and Google have only dumbed-down the initial critical decision; only for users to have to face critical and mind-numbing decisions, privacy concerns and maintenance issues every day thereafter, and to throw money and time down the drain that they didn't anticipate. Way to build trust and loyalty.
You have to live with it every day, but you are stuck with an unhealthy pile of crap that depresses you and keeps you from getting on with life in other areas because it is so high-maintenance; and no amount of "features" is going to make that any better. You have to live in it and you want to enjoy it; but you don't want to have to constantly deal with it or have to pay someone else to deal with it for you. That's what people need to experience and what people need to see or be educated about; and the Apple Stores probably help in that regard: showing that it doesn't have to be that way.
So, let's ditch the car analogies, and let's do houses! When choosing a house, you also have to research the neighborhood, schools, nearby shops and transportation routes. If a purchaser takes all that into account and just wants the "perfect location" even if they have to camp on the floor of a barn, or just wants a prefabricated rabbit hutch to live in because her priorities lie elsewhere, then good on them. But "everyone" knows that up front cost is the least of their worries when it comes to a house (in fact it can be a complete trap); they know that there is a lot more to moving in and making a place their home.
That's what gets me. I mean, I have no money to burn; so I am ultra-careful what I do with it. But the very people that say that price is such an issue very often don't go and do their due diligence (other than comparing prices between the same two crappy products). It just doesn't make sense. (And I blame the dumbing-down and numbing of the world by MS
Set a hammer on a table in a house, and ask someone who is about to purchase a computer or a smartphone if they would give more attention to the purchase of the hammer on the table or the house around you. A computer or smartphone purchase deserves a little more consideration than the purchase of a hammer.
[Just waiting for loads of people to tell me how Android or Windows "home ownership" is no hassle whatsoever.... yet they still have to take the garbage out, mow their lawn, pull weeds and wash their windows, etc., all the time professing to absolutely love it.]