I respect Matsu opinion. Hell I want Mac littered through my house but currently that's not going to happen.
I think it will be coming. I envision that in the new few years I will be buying Apple 5 Home license for OSX to put on the 5 OSX computers I hope to have. Right now I can't afford that but if Apple was to have a headless Mac that I had a modicum of expandability I'd buy in.
I just realize the high end needs to get in gear. Apple also need to get into IT in a big way. Suprise suprise WWDC has IT Seminars so Apple looks to be pushing into this market which will be good .IT is a big money maker on Service.
So in short ...no we're not going to get low cost Powermacs but hopefully we'll get Sub $1k boxes with a tad of expandability to easy "Rendezvous" them into our Home LAN.
Just a quick question. What apps would take the most advantage out of a 64 bit processor. Photoshop, FCP, Shake, Maya? Is it mostly apps that do heavy 3D rendering or video/picture editing or what? For an app like Safari, I don't think that it would have to be 64 bit compatible, but what would the advantages be if it was? I'm just trying to get an understanding of the difference between 64 and 32.
Well, first I'm going to start by saying just how nice it is to be typing this in smooth, a-a text using the 'beta' browser of my choice. Safari. I love thee already.
A 'slow' but quality experience on Jaguar 10.2 (Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon has just joined the party...) and a 600 G3 with 384 megs of ram.
Clearly, Apple's current OS and software and pushing this G3 to its limits.
Not that Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon notices.
But Mr. Lemon Bon Bon does. Especially after using that Athlon Tower of mine... Hmmm. Strange how I'm using this rather than the switched off Athlon tower.
And that's the point of my experiential annecdote. We know Apple has the quality, the experience in software and hardware.
However, their performance and price (in terms of desktops) needs work. It's a moot point anyhow. We know Apple's going to address the performance issue. The question is will they address the price issue.
While I agree with many of the posts so far, I think it's to Apple that we can look for to provide answers.
Fred Anderson has gone on record regarding the 'power'Mac issue. Apple's own internal report acknowledges the 'mhz' thing has damaged sales.
Fred said or intimated that Apple will address the 'power'Mac issue, with further aggressive price reductions building on those introduced in January! And also improving the performance issue which is a big hint re: a cpu/mb boost. Now this, I gotta see. Especially as they move to 970 Cpus. Of course a version of Quark 6 may also help which he also indicated. This is Apple themselves saying this. And dropping major hints about a software blitz (which is in itself an admission that they can't just rely on hardware revenue as they chase growth...)
So, they may reduce hardware margins and compensate with more low-end and mid-range priced software and services. A good move in my opinion. Because, Apple kit is good. But Apple software? Is excellent. (I'm using Safari and thinking, 'Geez, look at those little touches...isn't that clever....this is the way it SHOULD be...)
The days of selling £2k boxes in order to get decent performance are over. Apple's top end 'power'Mac price cut was tantamount to a bucket of cold water in Apple's face. ('Hallo...we needed that...what were we thinking...') A decent PC only costs £1k ish. Apple's train track protects them up to a point...but the fact that PC buyers are going into Apple stores with cold hard numbers and news clippings of their competitors suggest that Apple Stores will bring a modicum of reality to Apple's multimillion endowed upper -echelon.
Recent Apple moves on price re: eMacs, monitors, laptops, towers suggest a trend.
Moves to assemble and buy a greater bulk of components in Taiwan suggest Apple maybe squaring up to Dell to a degree. So instead of being 50%-100-150% more pricey that a PC Apple may be able to get that down to 10-30% without monitor ( ) I'd be very happy with a mere 10% Apple hardware premium. And a less rigid approach to their desktop line-up. If I want a Geforce Ti in an eMac why can't I have one?
The proof of the pudding will be the next round of tower 'updates'.
All round? I think current desktop prices should be 10% lower than they are.
As for the 970 lineup.
I'd be happy to see a single 1.6 and 1.8 making up the low-end, under and just over a K. Then dual 1.6 and dual 1.8 making up the 1.5k and 2K end.
That's four towers from just under a k to up to 2 K.
Plenty of room there. And really address the mhz thing at the 'low end'.
...and I don't think anybody is really suggesting that the 970 or a mini-tower or an iCube Dell buster, each on their own, or any other single strategy is going to propel Apple forward to growth.
No. No magic wand. Obvious.
However, a combination of above (clearly, Apple's desktop offerings need a little more variety and imagination...with a more price conscious but not Wallmart cheap approach...)
And that software? Software is why we use Apple. It is key to them offering superior solutions. It's why Quartz looks better. Software is what Apple does best. By offering compelling solutions in this regard that will swing the argument from just 'mhz' or performance.
Clearly performance isn't dire. But it's not great either on the Mac at the moment. 970 will offer more breadth of options in Apple's desktops.
As Apple stores head the front line of New Apple, it will be interesting to see where we are a year from now in terms of Apple software, cpu, variety of desktops and price.
Another eg. I hope Apple haven't done away with the 5 gig iPod to replace with the 10 gig iPod at same price. Use the 5 gig to drive prices down further...so more people can join the party. Otherwise, when people catch up (as they did with Apple in the 80s and 90s...) Apple will get thrown on their ass and lose the market. Sacred cow: critical mass. Can Apple tackle their inner-demon once and for all as they also square up to their nemesis, M$ with iWorks for Office?
better performance would go a long way towards fixing the price problem, but the simpe reality is that compuers are getting cheaper at a faster pace than Apple would like. Or anyone, I imagine, but they compete.
If I hated Apple or the mac, I wouln't have nearly as much complaining to do, I'd just wouldn't think about what they do or how they choose to do it. But I'm around, hoping they'll do better.
The complainers are NOT the people you simply won't ever get to "switch," they're the first, and perhaps only legitimate, immediate switch candidates -- people for whom the mac still resonates but for one reason (price) or another (options/flexibility) can't move to buy the machine. The indifferent will not switch, they simply don't care, are content with the prices and performance and style of their windows machines, and will go on using them no matter what Apple does. You can't win them over, they're lost untill M$ does something to drive them away (hello licensing practices!).
People who are complaining aren't "cheapskates" or "whiners" who'll just never switch, they're people who are thinking about it, much harder than anyone on these boards ever gives them credit. That's the pool of people Apple can most easily grow into, closet mac-o-philes.
Apple, win them over, don't frustrate them past the point of caring.
Once they stop following, bashing, complaining etc etc, they're gone, at that point they really don't care, they aren't coming back. Far from being a sign of weakness, or a futile target, the whiner demonstates that there's still potential for the mac to grow.
Once again, we're back to the cheap tower as the only imaginable form factor for a computer.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
PS, why is this concept so difficult for people to understand. DELL spends more. In all three of the quoted years, 12 quarters, DELL has spent more. What they spend as a percentage means nothing, having done this once, I'll do it again, since the concept is so damn difficult for some to grasp. Dell also pays money for an OS and software which for Apple is part of the overall R&D.
Since you keep banging on this drum despite the universally reported upon uses to which Dell puts their R&D research, I'll spell it out for you: Dell spends money trying to figure out how to make boxes cheaper. The fallacy in your argument is that you are assuming that just because both budgets are labeled "R&D" that they're both spent on the same things. But the reason Mike Dell can go in front of a bunch of people and call himself an innovator with a straight face is that Dell is constantly innovating on the logistics and manufacturing front. So you start with an ATX or mini-ATX tower - solely and exclusively because that's the standard, and it's designed for ease of assembly - for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the end user. You spend $600M a year trying to figure out how to make them as automatically and efficiently as possible, so that you can simultaneously conduct a price war and keep sane margins. There's actually a test production line in every Dell factory, always looking for a way to shave off a few pennies. This research pays for itself by cutting costs and restoring something as close to Dell's traditional 20% average margin as they can manage while sinking Gateway and Compaq. There are various other cost cutting measures, like the cheap, flimsy plastics on my OptiPlex that Apple would be publicly crucified for using.
Apple, obviously, targets their R&D in entirely different directions, some of which are plainly aimed at ease or cost of manufacturer (case in point: The LCD iMac), but which are instead aimed at user friendliness or size efficiency or some other design goal that Dell has never given a moment's thought to. Obviously, they are concerned with making things efficiently, and they've got one of the best guys in the industry working on this (Tim Cook), but since they aren't nearly as single-minded about efficiency, and they're not a commodity box maker, their costs are higher.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. The purpose of R&D is to increase profitability. Having used many Dell boxes I can honstly say that they are both very well made and very reliable, and anyone who gives WinXP an honest appraisal can only say that while it tries a bit too hard to get in your way, it works very reliably (as have 2000, and 98SE.) Dell's R&D money has been well spent and perhaps Apple should learn a thing or two from them. The plastic is as pretty as it needs to be, and the twoers are as accessible as they need to be, why not learn how to make that case for 50 dollars less, rather than cook up something new?
If you want to say that it all goes into the software, so be it. But we know it doesn't, and that the software isn't that far ahead, while it is very very nice, it has problems. The browsers are still slow, the number one piece of software everyone needs is an utter joke, AppleWorks??? come on Apple. (this does seem to be coming along in pieces though, with both a much better browser and a serious Powerpoint competitor in their early adolescent phases.
If Apple actually provided a full fledged Office killer and a better out of box warrantee with each new machine, even their curent prices would seem to me "not too bad at all."
And, they very well may be on their way to supplying such a suite, though they're going to do it in bits, it seems. IF, big if, they supply said wares free with each new mac, at least each new "pro" mac, color me satisfied, for now, provided they manage such a feat in the next two years.
...The purpose of R&D is to increase profitability....
That's where your interpretation of Apple's business fails. Whereas your point may be partially true of equipment manufacturers, it does not apply to an integrated company such as Apple.
Impossible. It's true 100% by definition. The purpose of a company is to make money. It spends money to make money, R&D is an expenditure. R&d is spent to facilitate making money. We call that profitability. Mebbe they think they can make more profit by making better interfaces or supplying better industrial design, but the purpose is always, by definition, to make more money. If you expenditures let you make proportionally more money, then they're good expenditures, if they don't, then they aren't.
I'd be happy to see a single 1.6 and 1.8 making up the low-end, under and just over a K. Then dual 1.6 and dual 1.8 making up the 1.5k and 2K end.
That's four towers from just under a k to up to 2 K.
But why would Apple sell their Top Computer for such pittance?
The Top of the line loaded computer should always eclipse $3k. Hell people used to pay $5k for the Top Mac. I'm all for good prices. I'm not rich. But I think that Apple could subsist nicely off of Powermacs that range from $1399-$3499. I may not have the money but people who's livelyhoods depend on their computer in many cases wouldn't balk at $3499 for the top PM loaded.
Just as you like saving your money in the bank. So do Apple. They are no different than any of us. They have their balance sheet and the numbers gotta jive.
From Dot.com failures to Gateway and their 3rd Reorg it's PAINFULLY obvious that you cannot sell items for little margin and hope to survice. Consumers can quickly become buzzards..picking over the remains of companies that have much such foolish decisions.
You will not see significantly lower prices on Mac Hardware until Apple has set up some additional revenue streams. .mac is here to stay and the Music Service just may be popular but it will take more.
I'm happy with Apple progress. Not only are they making good product but their are strategically acquiring IP that will extend the benefits of choosing the platform.
As with any transaction...there has to be something in it for you and Apple.
matsu your right, but apple has to add R&D money to the price of HW for the OS. Win XP does work very well, its speedy even on older computers and very stable. But it is still windows and has the problem of apps being made poorly UI wise. I dont mind using XP, its alot better looking then an other windows but it can't compare to OS X.
For the OS, clean UI, and thought that most mac apps have put into them i am definatly willing to pay more
the problem is like you said people rn't cheapskates but how do you put a price on that...unless you are used to it, its nearly impossible. You can't describe it well, only give examples that sound like...well, examples. You don't get a feeling for it. I didn't mean anything by my post earlier about how you always say the same thing, you have good reason to and give logical posts. I am just saying its well worth it, apple's problem is how do you portray it.
Once again, we're back to the cheap tower as the only imaginable form factor for a computer.
It's clearly not the only one. But an option Apple are lacking in my view...along with one or two others. It is also a popular one. Every PC shop I go into, every PC owning friend I have or know...every catalogue...Towers...and the majority offering more bang for buck than the Apple equivalent. (Where in the world? PeeCee World...) Maybe Amorph and a few apple-loyalists are projecting their wishes in not wanting to see cheaper Apple towers. But they won't keep Apple in business or grow their cake share.
As for giving away towers Haymuch. Defying reality is a sure fire way to lose money also. Apple clearly agree as they've reduced the price of their towers. Perhaps in light of staggering tower sales, oops, losses. While, in comparison, the reasonably priced ibook is vying for Apple's sales flagship. Gee, maybe its the economy or the fact people are dumping their underperforming G4 towers for a laptop machine that underperforms by only a little less...
I think four towers stepped every 250£ is a good idea. A 1.6 single 970 isn't going to be that impressive by the time the 970 finally ships. 2.5-2.8 gig Pentium 4 towers are already going cheaply. My suggestion was merely catch up on the low end. I'll stand by my idea. It will be interesting to see what Apple does in light of their promises to address price and performance. Clearly they are indicating they don't agree with you Haymuch. If they want to get to 5% then Apple clearly has their work cut out. And selling 3K towers with outmoded G4s wasn't going to do it.
...all I'm asking for is choice. Apple already makes a product with a performance level I'm willing to accept. A 800MHz G3 is damn fine by me as a business machine. I don't need anything more. A 1GHz G3? Fine if IBM has'em, I'll take one.
But how hard is it to simply stick in one PCI slot and 1 AGP? It would actually make Apple's life a little easier. If everyone was buying headless iMacs with an AGP slot, if Apple decides it wants to introduce SupaFly MegaQuartz Extreme but only on 'puters with 256MB GeF-FX's, then the level of bitching will be a bunch less cuz anyone will be able to simply upgrade their video card.
Its not performance. Its not even necessarily cost. Its FORCED obsolesence. I have an MDD Dual 1gig at home, but at work I have a six year old 9600 that I refuse to part with because I can upgrade it more readily than a new $1800 iMac. How bout just a super slim tower with a vertical slot loading CD-ROM, 1 PCI slot, and 1 AGP slot on riser boards, ala the Xserve? Thin, sleek, quiet, affordable AND upgradeable. In case you want something like USB2 or FW800, simple $50 upgrades you can't make on an iMac.
Make that and I'll buy 2, maybe 3. I won't pay $1500 for a Pro tower I don't need. And I won't buy an AIO iMac either.
making a tower liek that would only work if you had to buy the upgrades from apple...and yet that would cause even more b***'n
it would be nice though...but if u are serious enough to be upgrading you should probably have a tower...i am a consumer, not a professional really, and I will definatly go for a tower...it sets u back a little more yeah but its just nicer in general
I meant Mr. Matsu, who to me at least, sounds like a broken record...
I know what you meant. Matsu has just as much right to voice his opinions as the rest of us, and at least he's more coherent (and usually polite) about it than some.
Its not performance. Its not even necessarily cost. Its FORCED obsolesence. I have an MDD Dual 1gig at home, but at work I have a six year old 9600 that I refuse to part with because I can upgrade it more readily than a new $1800 iMac. How bout just a super slim tower with a vertical slot loading CD-ROM, 1 PCI slot, and 1 AGP slot on riser boards, ala the Xserve? Thin, sleek, quiet, affordable AND upgradeable. In case you want something like USB2 or FW800, simple $50 upgrades you can't make on an iMac.
....
You want choice, but you won't accept the choices provided. You can buy any of the preconfigured crop of MDD PowerMacs for less than the price you paid for your beloved 9600. In terms of performance, any one of these MDDs will blow the doors off your 9600. Apple sells the iMac to those who need a computing applicance. You pull it out of the box, plug it in and get to work. It is not meant to be particularly customizable. For that, Apple sells the MDD Power Mac G4. There has never been a better time to buy a PowerMac.
You want choice, but you won't accept the choices provided. You can buy any of the preconfigured crop of MDD PowerMacs for less than the price you paid for your beloved 9600. In terms of performance, any one of these MDDs will blow the doors off your 9600. Apple sells the iMac to those who need a computing applicance. You pull it out of the box, plug it in and get to work. It is not meant to be particularly customizable. For that, Apple sells the MDD Power Mac G4. There has never been a better time to buy a PowerMac.
...really? I bought my beloved 9600 used for $150 and put a 700 MHz G4 in it for $280 for a total of $430. So much for that theory.
As for performance, I have a Dual 1gig MDD AND my 9600. I know what the performance difference is. I also know that running Microsoft RDC, Filemaker Pro, Office, and AccountEdge 3 all run acceptably fast under OS X on my 9600. So I don't care about "blowing the doors off my 9600." I just want a modern upgradeable Mac that doesn't start at $1500. You have to spend even more to get an upgradeable PowerBook. A PC card slot should be a given in a modern notebook.
Face it, the PowerMacs are selling like crap. So how could selling a midrange consumer tower possibly do any more damage than has already been done? You can defend Apple all you want on this, but the market is speaking. Quit trying to force configurations on the customers.
Don't you know that Apple's forced upgrade plan actually works against it. If you have to buy a whole new PC to just upgrade the video or monitor, that is another opportunity for that consumer to be move to a PC to avoid such as situation again.
Why should you have to buy a whole new iMac, a computer you paid nearly 2 grand for to upgrade a freaking video card? Its stupid, its dumb, its ignorant, its poor business, and it pisses customers off.
Comments
I think it will be coming. I envision that in the new few years I will be buying Apple 5 Home license for OSX to put on the 5 OSX computers I hope to have. Right now I can't afford that but if Apple was to have a headless Mac that I had a modicum of expandability I'd buy in.
I just realize the high end needs to get in gear. Apple also need to get into IT in a big way. Suprise suprise WWDC has IT Seminars so Apple looks to be pushing into this market which will be good .IT is a big money maker on Service.
So in short ...no we're not going to get low cost Powermacs but hopefully we'll get Sub $1k boxes with a tad of expandability to easy "Rendezvous" them into our Home LAN.
The future looks fun.
A 'slow' but quality experience on Jaguar 10.2 (Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon has just joined the party...) and a 600 G3 with 384 megs of ram.
Clearly, Apple's current OS and software and pushing this G3 to its limits.
Not that Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon notices.
But Mr. Lemon Bon Bon does. Especially after using that Athlon Tower of mine... Hmmm. Strange how I'm using this rather than the switched off Athlon tower.
And that's the point of my experiential annecdote. We know Apple has the quality, the experience in software and hardware.
However, their performance and price (in terms of desktops) needs work. It's a moot point anyhow. We know Apple's going to address the performance issue. The question is will they address the price issue.
While I agree with many of the posts so far, I think it's to Apple that we can look for to provide answers.
Fred Anderson has gone on record regarding the 'power'Mac issue. Apple's own internal report acknowledges the 'mhz' thing has damaged sales.
Fred said or intimated that Apple will address the 'power'Mac issue, with further aggressive price reductions building on those introduced in January! And also improving the performance issue which is a big hint re: a cpu/mb boost. Now this, I gotta see. Especially as they move to 970 Cpus. Of course a version of Quark 6 may also help which he also indicated. This is Apple themselves saying this. And dropping major hints about a software blitz (which is in itself an admission that they can't just rely on hardware revenue as they chase growth...)
So, they may reduce hardware margins and compensate with more low-end and mid-range priced software and services. A good move in my opinion. Because, Apple kit is good. But Apple software? Is excellent. (I'm using Safari and thinking, 'Geez, look at those little touches...isn't that clever....this is the way it SHOULD be...)
The days of selling £2k boxes in order to get decent performance are over. Apple's top end 'power'Mac price cut was tantamount to a bucket of cold water in Apple's face. ('Hallo...we needed that...what were we thinking...') A decent PC only costs £1k ish. Apple's train track protects them up to a point...but the fact that PC buyers are going into Apple stores with cold hard numbers and news clippings of their competitors suggest that Apple Stores will bring a modicum of reality to Apple's multimillion endowed upper -echelon.
Recent Apple moves on price re: eMacs, monitors, laptops, towers suggest a trend.
Moves to assemble and buy a greater bulk of components in Taiwan suggest Apple maybe squaring up to Dell to a degree. So instead of being 50%-100-150% more pricey that a PC Apple may be able to get that down to 10-30% without monitor (
The proof of the pudding will be the next round of tower 'updates'.
All round? I think current desktop prices should be 10% lower than they are.
As for the 970 lineup.
I'd be happy to see a single 1.6 and 1.8 making up the low-end, under and just over a K. Then dual 1.6 and dual 1.8 making up the 1.5k and 2K end.
That's four towers from just under a k to up to 2 K.
Plenty of room there. And really address the mhz thing at the 'low end'.
Lemon Bon Bon 8)
No. No magic wand. Obvious.
However, a combination of above (clearly, Apple's desktop offerings need a little more variety and imagination...with a more price conscious but not Wallmart cheap approach...)
And that software? Software is why we use Apple. It is key to them offering superior solutions. It's why Quartz looks better. Software is what Apple does best. By offering compelling solutions in this regard that will swing the argument from just 'mhz' or performance.
Clearly performance isn't dire. But it's not great either on the Mac at the moment. 970 will offer more breadth of options in Apple's desktops.
As Apple stores head the front line of New Apple, it will be interesting to see where we are a year from now in terms of Apple software, cpu, variety of desktops and price.
Another eg. I hope Apple haven't done away with the 5 gig iPod to replace with the 10 gig iPod at same price. Use the 5 gig to drive prices down further...so more people can join the party. Otherwise, when people catch up (as they did with Apple in the 80s and 90s...) Apple will get thrown on their ass and lose the market. Sacred cow: critical mass. Can Apple tackle their inner-demon once and for all as they also square up to their nemesis, M$ with iWorks for Office?
2003. I can't wait for the rest.
Lemon Bon Bon
If I hated Apple or the mac, I wouln't have nearly as much complaining to do, I'd just wouldn't think about what they do or how they choose to do it. But I'm around, hoping they'll do better.
The complainers are NOT the people you simply won't ever get to "switch," they're the first, and perhaps only legitimate, immediate switch candidates -- people for whom the mac still resonates but for one reason (price) or another (options/flexibility) can't move to buy the machine. The indifferent will not switch, they simply don't care, are content with the prices and performance and style of their windows machines, and will go on using them no matter what Apple does. You can't win them over, they're lost untill M$ does something to drive them away (hello licensing practices!).
People who are complaining aren't "cheapskates" or "whiners" who'll just never switch, they're people who are thinking about it, much harder than anyone on these boards ever gives them credit. That's the pool of people Apple can most easily grow into, closet mac-o-philes.
Apple, win them over, don't frustrate them past the point of caring.
Once they stop following, bashing, complaining etc etc, they're gone, at that point they really don't care, they aren't coming back. Far from being a sign of weakness, or a futile target, the whiner demonstates that there's still potential for the mac to grow.
Originally posted by Matsu
PS, why is this concept so difficult for people to understand. DELL spends more. In all three of the quoted years, 12 quarters, DELL has spent more. What they spend as a percentage means nothing, having done this once, I'll do it again, since the concept is so damn difficult for some to grasp. Dell also pays money for an OS and software which for Apple is part of the overall R&D.
Since you keep banging on this drum despite the universally reported upon uses to which Dell puts their R&D research, I'll spell it out for you: Dell spends money trying to figure out how to make boxes cheaper. The fallacy in your argument is that you are assuming that just because both budgets are labeled "R&D" that they're both spent on the same things. But the reason Mike Dell can go in front of a bunch of people and call himself an innovator with a straight face is that Dell is constantly innovating on the logistics and manufacturing front. So you start with an ATX or mini-ATX tower - solely and exclusively because that's the standard, and it's designed for ease of assembly - for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the end user. You spend $600M a year trying to figure out how to make them as automatically and efficiently as possible, so that you can simultaneously conduct a price war and keep sane margins. There's actually a test production line in every Dell factory, always looking for a way to shave off a few pennies. This research pays for itself by cutting costs and restoring something as close to Dell's traditional 20% average margin as they can manage while sinking Gateway and Compaq. There are various other cost cutting measures, like the cheap, flimsy plastics on my OptiPlex that Apple would be publicly crucified for using.
Apple, obviously, targets their R&D in entirely different directions, some of which are plainly aimed at ease or cost of manufacturer (case in point: The LCD iMac), but which are instead aimed at user friendliness or size efficiency or some other design goal that Dell has never given a moment's thought to. Obviously, they are concerned with making things efficiently, and they've got one of the best guys in the industry working on this (Tim Cook), but since they aren't nearly as single-minded about efficiency, and they're not a commodity box maker, their costs are higher.
If you want to say that it all goes into the software, so be it. But we know it doesn't, and that the software isn't that far ahead, while it is very very nice, it has problems. The browsers are still slow, the number one piece of software everyone needs is an utter joke, AppleWorks??? come on Apple. (this does seem to be coming along in pieces though, with both a much better browser and a serious Powerpoint competitor in their early adolescent phases.
If Apple actually provided a full fledged Office killer and a better out of box warrantee with each new machine, even their curent prices would seem to me "not too bad at all."
And, they very well may be on their way to supplying such a suite, though they're going to do it in bits, it seems. IF, big if, they supply said wares free with each new mac, at least each new "pro" mac, color me satisfied, for now, provided they manage such a feat in the next two years.
That's where your interpretation of Apple's business fails. Whereas your point may be partially true of equipment manufacturers, it does not apply to an integrated company such as Apple.
I'd be happy to see a single 1.6 and 1.8 making up the low-end, under and just over a K. Then dual 1.6 and dual 1.8 making up the 1.5k and 2K end.
That's four towers from just under a k to up to 2 K.
But why would Apple sell their Top Computer for such pittance?
The Top of the line loaded computer should always eclipse $3k. Hell people used to pay $5k for the Top Mac. I'm all for good prices. I'm not rich. But I think that Apple could subsist nicely off of Powermacs that range from $1399-$3499. I may not have the money but people who's livelyhoods depend on their computer in many cases wouldn't balk at $3499 for the top PM loaded.
Just as you like saving your money in the bank. So do Apple. They are no different than any of us. They have their balance sheet and the numbers gotta jive.
From Dot.com failures to Gateway and their 3rd Reorg it's PAINFULLY obvious that you cannot sell items for little margin and hope to survice. Consumers can quickly become buzzards..picking over the remains of companies that have much such foolish decisions.
You will not see significantly lower prices on Mac Hardware until Apple has set up some additional revenue streams. .mac is here to stay and the Music Service just may be popular but it will take more.
I'm happy with Apple progress. Not only are they making good product but their are strategically acquiring IP that will extend the benefits of choosing the platform.
As with any transaction...there has to be something in it for you and Apple.
For the OS, clean UI, and thought that most mac apps have put into them i am definatly willing to pay more
the problem is like you said people rn't cheapskates but how do you put a price on that...unless you are used to it, its nearly impossible. You can't describe it well, only give examples that sound like...well, examples. You don't get a feeling for it. I didn't mean anything by my post earlier about how you always say the same thing, you have good reason to and give logical posts. I am just saying its well worth it, apple's problem is how do you portray it.
for apple it means something else than for dell.
increasing profitability is indeed a way to stay in bussines as is innovation. something i never ever saw in a dell box.
oh wait, dell wants to delete the floppy, that's a lot of innovation indeed and costs a lot of R&D to do so.
(how do we sell a pc without a floppy-drive... think, think, think)
Once again, we're back to the cheap tower as the only imaginable form factor for a computer.
It's clearly not the only one. But an option Apple are lacking in my view...along with one or two others. It is also a popular one. Every PC shop I go into, every PC owning friend I have or know...every catalogue...Towers...and the majority offering more bang for buck than the Apple equivalent. (Where in the world? PeeCee World...) Maybe Amorph and a few apple-loyalists are projecting their wishes in not wanting to see cheaper Apple towers. But they won't keep Apple in business or grow their cake share.
As for giving away towers Haymuch. Defying reality is a sure fire way to lose money also. Apple clearly agree as they've reduced the price of their towers. Perhaps in light of staggering tower sales, oops, losses. While, in comparison, the reasonably priced ibook is vying for Apple's sales flagship. Gee, maybe its the economy or the fact people are dumping their underperforming G4 towers for a laptop machine that underperforms by only a little less...
I think four towers stepped every 250£ is a good idea. A 1.6 single 970 isn't going to be that impressive by the time the 970 finally ships. 2.5-2.8 gig Pentium 4 towers are already going cheaply. My suggestion was merely catch up on the low end. I'll stand by my idea. It will be interesting to see what Apple does in light of their promises to address price and performance. Clearly they are indicating they don't agree with you Haymuch.
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon
But how hard is it to simply stick in one PCI slot and 1 AGP? It would actually make Apple's life a little easier. If everyone was buying headless iMacs with an AGP slot, if Apple decides it wants to introduce SupaFly MegaQuartz Extreme but only on 'puters with 256MB GeF-FX's, then the level of bitching will be a bunch less cuz anyone will be able to simply upgrade their video card.
Its not performance. Its not even necessarily cost. Its FORCED obsolesence. I have an MDD Dual 1gig at home, but at work I have a six year old 9600 that I refuse to part with because I can upgrade it more readily than a new $1800 iMac. How bout just a super slim tower with a vertical slot loading CD-ROM, 1 PCI slot, and 1 AGP slot on riser boards, ala the Xserve? Thin, sleek, quiet, affordable AND upgradeable. In case you want something like USB2 or FW800, simple $50 upgrades you can't make on an iMac.
Make that and I'll buy 2, maybe 3. I won't pay $1500 for a Pro tower I don't need. And I won't buy an AIO iMac either.
it would be nice though...but if u are serious enough to be upgrading you should probably have a tower...i am a consumer, not a professional really, and I will definatly go for a tower...it sets u back a little more yeah but its just nicer in general
Originally posted by keyboardf12
No No No... I love your posts..
I meant Mr. Matsu, who to me at least, sounds like a broken record...
I know what you meant. Matsu has just as much right to voice his opinions as the rest of us, and at least he's more coherent (and usually polite) about it than some.
Originally posted by mooseman
...all I'm asking for is choice....
Its not performance. Its not even necessarily cost. Its FORCED obsolesence. I have an MDD Dual 1gig at home, but at work I have a six year old 9600 that I refuse to part with because I can upgrade it more readily than a new $1800 iMac. How bout just a super slim tower with a vertical slot loading CD-ROM, 1 PCI slot, and 1 AGP slot on riser boards, ala the Xserve? Thin, sleek, quiet, affordable AND upgradeable. In case you want something like USB2 or FW800, simple $50 upgrades you can't make on an iMac.
....
You want choice, but you won't accept the choices provided. You can buy any of the preconfigured crop of MDD PowerMacs for less than the price you paid for your beloved 9600. In terms of performance, any one of these MDDs will blow the doors off your 9600. Apple sells the iMac to those who need a computing applicance. You pull it out of the box, plug it in and get to work. It is not meant to be particularly customizable. For that, Apple sells the MDD Power Mac G4. There has never been a better time to buy a PowerMac.
It is also funny when someone mentions kormac and he gets all red in the face.
Anyone who spends this much time coming up with ideas and suggestions and ways for Apple to improve is more valuable then many of us.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You want choice, but you won't accept the choices provided. You can buy any of the preconfigured crop of MDD PowerMacs for less than the price you paid for your beloved 9600. In terms of performance, any one of these MDDs will blow the doors off your 9600. Apple sells the iMac to those who need a computing applicance. You pull it out of the box, plug it in and get to work. It is not meant to be particularly customizable. For that, Apple sells the MDD Power Mac G4. There has never been a better time to buy a PowerMac.
...really? I bought my beloved 9600 used for $150 and put a 700 MHz G4 in it for $280 for a total of $430. So much for that theory.
As for performance, I have a Dual 1gig MDD AND my 9600. I know what the performance difference is. I also know that running Microsoft RDC, Filemaker Pro, Office, and AccountEdge 3 all run acceptably fast under OS X on my 9600. So I don't care about "blowing the doors off my 9600." I just want a modern upgradeable Mac that doesn't start at $1500. You have to spend even more to get an upgradeable PowerBook. A PC card slot should be a given in a modern notebook.
Face it, the PowerMacs are selling like crap. So how could selling a midrange consumer tower possibly do any more damage than has already been done? You can defend Apple all you want on this, but the market is speaking. Quit trying to force configurations on the customers.
Don't you know that Apple's forced upgrade plan actually works against it. If you have to buy a whole new PC to just upgrade the video or monitor, that is another opportunity for that consumer to be move to a PC to avoid such as situation again.
Why should you have to buy a whole new iMac, a computer you paid nearly 2 grand for to upgrade a freaking video card? Its stupid, its dumb, its ignorant, its poor business, and it pisses customers off.