There are 4 differences between a Macintosh tower and a comparable PC tower.
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
<strong>Something tells me that deep down, try as you may to make light, you really believe it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, sorry. I've heard it too long to take it seriously.
As for "I'm a striahgt man. I don't like pretty cases," well, 1. you're trivializing the opposing point of view, 2. I'm straight, a man, I like pretty cases, and it's a juvenile comment, and 3. it's a poor retort in any case.
<strong>There are 4 differences between a Macintosh tower and a comparable PC tower.
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
Regards,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair and if anyone intends to use those factors to excuse Apple prices, the arguments can be largely dispelled by my previous posts.
There are research-development costs and then component costs. We have seen that the premium (per machine) to be added for research and development is nominal (compared even to a DELL). And actually Apple gets more for it's research money because they supply their own OS. DELL still has to pay a license for each machine, bringing their actual per unit costs even closer. Contrary to popular belief, the development of an OS is NOT a burden. It's just another myth from the cult of apology.
Next come component costs. The only differences are cases, motherboards and CPU's. Again, the "But Apple parts cost more argument" proves riddled with holes upon even the slightest rational inquiry.
CPU and Motherboard.
I don't have the latest prices for CPU, but I can give the quantity prices for the first Apollos (PPC 7455) when they were released. You will find they were are quite cheap. $125 for an 800 and $295 for a 1Ghz (when 1Ghz was the high-end). Making the reasonable assumption that new chips come in at the top price point and shift previous versions down the food chain, as both Intel and AMD do, you can safely assume that Moto's PPC's cost between 75 and 300 USD for any given current line-up. A little cheaper, actually, than the top-end spread of offerings from Intel at any given time.
Motherboard, again, info is hard to come by, and there is the added difficulty of integrated motherboards in the consumer desktops. Again, just a brief look around will dispel most of the apologists myths. The most cost effective solutions for system builders always involve an integrated board, for what you give up in expansion, and slight intial cost, you make back in integrated I/O and video. Apple milks it's motherboards for a long run, costs are cheap, they aren't pressing these things out of gold. So an iMac might have a slightly more expensive Mobo (over the long run) but that includes video and I/O components, a system builder like Dell has to order all of these parts on their consumer towers. Mobo makers routinely sell and update fully integrated motherboards to sell for 100-250USD, they have to make all their profit from the mobo itself, and they manage, they're not even packaging it with a whole computer full of other parts to mark-up, yet they do OK. More expensive Mobo's and CPU's just doesn't hold up to scruitiny.
That leaves the cases, and yes chico, these probably cost a bit more, but how much? These are made in asian factories by large contractors who can supply them on the cheap due to volume.
At the end of the day, there really isn't anything to keep Apple from staying within 200USD of equivalently equipped PC offerings and still turn a nice profit. I suspect that a very fat executive is costing shareholders a lot more than research and development or production costs and retail price competition.
Well, Apple does have a lot of r&D, and like I said, they have no high margin enterprise space to really speak of to cover the costs of it. Likewise, they do devlop their own OS, the QT frameowrk, various software sold for very very low prices given their value, and they give away some of it. So we can just go in circles speculating about how the numbers play out, your way, or my way. But I'm right of course.
So... whining about it is to... what? Should we just save ourselves the "heartache" and switch to Windows PCs now? Should we try to stage a coup in Cupertino and play "if-I-were -CEO?" Do we pay what we think the stuff is worth and let the lawyers have at it? Or do we just like to complain? What shall we do, oh fearless leader?
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the other components may be the same on the PC platform but Apple does by higher quality components (case in point, Apple could have gone with cheaper 2.5" drives but instead uses the costlier 1.8" drive). I figure this has to add at least 10-20% to their component costs.
uhh, no they don't. And that is a terrible example as 1.8" and 2.5" drives are an entirely different class of component. Anybody using a 1.8 will be using a Toshiba drive, there is no higher quality unit, Toshiba makes a HDD based MP3 player and guess whose HDD they use? hint, it's a 1.8"
RAM, same stuff. GPU, same. HDD's, same. LCD's too, from Samsung and LG. Just another apologists myth. Components in general are very good these days, and Apple uses the most cost effective stuff. In some cases, like HDD's, they've even occasionally used poorer quality parts. Ditto opticals where (apart from brief leads in combo and superdrive implementation) they typically use slower than average (and thus far cheaper) drives.
<strong>There are 4 differences between a Macintosh tower and a comparable PC tower.
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
Regards,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, Apple uses a different PSU in the towers. Which is causing some slight road bumps for those that are building their own G4 systems and don't wanna pony up for the Apple PSU.
It can be done with a regular PSU, extra supplies and a little soldering....
Comments
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
Regards,
-theMagius
The motherboard probably doesn't cost anymore for Apple to make than any other motherboard used by any other vendor,
PowerPC processors are dirt cheap in the quanities Apple buys them in.
That leaves Mac OS as the only reasonable basis of a price differance, and Apple sells Mac OS X for $129 with the traditional fat margin
[ 10-28-2002: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</p>
<strong>Something tells me that deep down, try as you may to make light, you really believe it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, sorry.
As for "I'm a striahgt man. I don't like pretty cases," well, 1. you're trivializing the opposing point of view, 2. I'm straight, a man, I like pretty cases, and it's a juvenile comment, and 3. it's a poor retort in any case.
My, oh my, you guys have to take it easy.
<strong>There are 4 differences between a Macintosh tower and a comparable PC tower.
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
Regards,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair and if anyone intends to use those factors to excuse Apple prices, the arguments can be largely dispelled by my previous posts.
There are research-development costs and then component costs. We have seen that the premium (per machine) to be added for research and development is nominal (compared even to a DELL). And actually Apple gets more for it's research money because they supply their own OS. DELL still has to pay a license for each machine, bringing their actual per unit costs even closer. Contrary to popular belief, the development of an OS is NOT a burden. It's just another myth from the cult of apology.
Next come component costs. The only differences are cases, motherboards and CPU's. Again, the "But Apple parts cost more argument" proves riddled with holes upon even the slightest rational inquiry.
CPU and Motherboard.
I don't have the latest prices for CPU, but I can give the quantity prices for the first Apollos (PPC 7455) when they were released. You will find they were are quite cheap. $125 for an 800 and $295 for a 1Ghz (when 1Ghz was the high-end). Making the reasonable assumption that new chips come in at the top price point and shift previous versions down the food chain, as both Intel and AMD do, you can safely assume that Moto's PPC's cost between 75 and 300 USD for any given current line-up. A little cheaper, actually, than the top-end spread of offerings from Intel at any given time.
Motherboard, again, info is hard to come by, and there is the added difficulty of integrated motherboards in the consumer desktops. Again, just a brief look around will dispel most of the apologists myths. The most cost effective solutions for system builders always involve an integrated board, for what you give up in expansion, and slight intial cost, you make back in integrated I/O and video. Apple milks it's motherboards for a long run, costs are cheap, they aren't pressing these things out of gold. So an iMac might have a slightly more expensive Mobo (over the long run) but that includes video and I/O components, a system builder like Dell has to order all of these parts on their consumer towers. Mobo makers routinely sell and update fully integrated motherboards to sell for 100-250USD, they have to make all their profit from the mobo itself, and they manage, they're not even packaging it with a whole computer full of other parts to mark-up, yet they do OK. More expensive Mobo's and CPU's just doesn't hold up to scruitiny.
That leaves the cases, and yes chico, these probably cost a bit more, but how much? These are made in asian factories by large contractors who can supply them on the cheap due to volume.
At the end of the day, there really isn't anything to keep Apple from staying within 200USD of equivalently equipped PC offerings and still turn a nice profit. I suspect that a very fat executive is costing shareholders a lot more than research and development or production costs and retail price competition.
So... whining about it is to... what? Should we just save ourselves the "heartache" and switch to Windows PCs now? Should we try to stage a coup in Cupertino and play "if-I-were -CEO?" Do we pay what we think the stuff is worth and let the lawyers have at it? Or do we just like to complain? What shall we do, oh fearless leader?
I prefer to speak with my wallet, so I can't see the point in hanging out at message boards complaining about something and still paying for it.
mika.
[ 10-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
JUST DO US ALL A FAVOR AND BUY FREAKIN' PC YOU WINDOWS TROLL!
troll.
<strong>
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the other components may be the same on the PC platform but Apple does by higher quality components (case in point, Apple could have gone with cheaper 2.5" drives but instead uses the costlier 1.8" drive). I figure this has to add at least 10-20% to their component costs.
RAM, same stuff. GPU, same. HDD's, same. LCD's too, from Samsung and LG. Just another apologists myth. Components in general are very good these days, and Apple uses the most cost effective stuff. In some cases, like HDD's, they've even occasionally used poorer quality parts. Ditto opticals where (apart from brief leads in combo and superdrive implementation) they typically use slower than average (and thus far cheaper) drives.
<strong>There are 4 differences between a Macintosh tower and a comparable PC tower.
1) Case
2) Motherboard
3) CPU
4) Operating System
Nearly everything else (Fans, Drives, Cables, etc.) is identical between the two platforms.
So the main question really becomes, "Do these four differences justify the price difference between a Dell and an Apple computer?" Only the consumer can answer this, of course. But it appears (at least in the short term) that a significant portion of the education market feels that it DOES NOT.
An additional question might be, "How far is Apple Computer willing to flex its present business model in order to gain market share?" I am not privy to this information, but it seems to be a very pertinent question.
If anyone has the answers to these questions (backed up with statistics/web links), I'd love to see them.
Regards,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, Apple uses a different PSU in the towers. Which is causing some slight road bumps for those that are building their own G4 systems and don't wanna pony up for the Apple PSU.
It can be done with a regular PSU, extra supplies and a little soldering....